2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a construction permit in the form of complex civil petition with the content that “to newly build Class 1 neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, retail stores, offices) of the second floor” on the ground (hereinafter “the instant application site”) located on the ground of the 595 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant application site”) and filed an application for a construction permit in the form of complex civil petition, on the grounds that the application for a development permit, an application for permission for, and a report on, diversion of farmland, an application for permission for, and a report on the installation of drainage facilities, etc. were en bloc processed. However, on July 12, 201

B. On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff attached a letter of approval for use to the public parking lot adjacent to the instant application to the Defendant, along with a letter of approval for use for the branch office of the Korea Rural Community Corporation.

The application for construction permission (hereinafter referred to as the "application of this case") as stated in the same paragraph was filed.

C. On August 16, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on August 16, 2013 on the ground that “if a public parking lot is used for the entry into and exit from a private building, the number of parking lots in the public parking lot would decrease, thereby undermining the function of the public parking lot.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 24, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 21 (if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings, including all types of numbers.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Construction of a building at the site of the instant application purporting to the Plaintiff’s assertion

Even if the Defendant’s public parking lot’s function cannot be deemed to be impeded, and the Defendant, immediately adjacent to the instant application, permitted the new construction and extension of the building to D, which is the owner of the land in North Korea-gun C, North Korea-gun, which was directly adjacent to the instant application, but rejected it only to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that it was in violation of the law

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

(c)a recognition;