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

A. On November 10, 2008, the Plaintiff, jointly with B and C, was sold in lots from the Busan Urban Corporation, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 7, 201.

B. On March 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the Defendant to construct the building area on the instant land on the third floor (one Dong) above the size of 161.84m, the total floor area of 14m square meters, the third floor above the size of 14m, the detached house for the purpose, and the second class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. On March 18, 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the following matters. ① The pertinent area is an area in which a master plan for the creation of a master plan for the creation of a master plan for the mix of the Dongsan relocation complex is prepared and implemented in accordance with the standards for the application of the master plan to supplement the following matters. The pertinent area requires to prepare a design plan for the establishment of the master plan in accordance with the table for the application of the master plan to supplement the following matters. The pertinent area is resolved to construct the total number on a low-rise floor through the National Assembly of Gamo Village in order to secure a residential-centered landscape, view, etc. in the village, and to adjust the number of floors to less than 2 stories (multi-household). The number of households in the first floor of the detached house ② (multi-household) is likely to increase in the number of households in accordance with the plan, such as the adjustment of the exterior wall of the stairs room, and thus, the Plaintiff requires the Plaintiff to supplement the above matters, such as the repreparation of the design drawings, but not subject to the above Ordinance of the Building Act.

E. However, on April 20, 2015, the plaintiff refused the above request for supplementation, and the defendant rejected the application of this case on the ground that "the area was decided to construct the number of floors to not more than two floors through the local community assembly of architectural coaches on the low floor to secure the residential-centered landscape, view, etc." on the ground that the application of this case was rejected due to the reason that "it was not supplemented despite the demand for supplementation to adjust the number of floors to not more than two floors, it was not implemented and it was returned to be a supplementary compatibility with the surrounding environment of our village" (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case").

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

There is no statutory limitation that only a building with not more than two floors can be constructed as a Class I general residential area, and the third and second floors have no big difference from the number of floors, and thus there is no substantial influence on the residential-oriented landscape and view, and the village agreement of our country, which is the grounds for disposition by the defendant, cannot be the legal basis for restricting the construction. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is an deviation from and abuse of discretionary authority and is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The instant land is a Class 1 general residential area and Class 1 district unit planning zone, which belongs to the relocation complex located at the end of the south of the dong Busan Complex, and is located geographically in the block immediately adjacent to the parking lot of the dong Busan Complex, and the plane captain-gun, which belongs to the Dong Busan Tourist Complex, is the area where the city and the Dong village exist.

2) On September 17, 2008, a large number of village residents in the village who want to take part in the part where the land of this case is located among the resettlement complex, decided to construct all buildings on not more than two floors through the residents' general meeting in order to create a residential complex combining the advantages of the rural and urban communities before the Plaintiff bought the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "village community agreement") and as a result, most buildings with not more than two floors are constructed in the village of this case until now (three-story buildings constructed only in our village are constructed in favor of the Busan District Court Decision 2011Gu 5415 Gu 2015 Gu 2015).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1, result of on-site inspection by this court, purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) As long as an application for a building permit is not in conflict with any limitation stipulated by the relevant laws, such as the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act, a building permit holder shall grant a building permit as a matter of course, so it cannot refuse an examination as to whether the application is in conflict with the limitation stipulated by the relevant laws and regulations without any legal basis, and if the application is in conformity with the legal requirements as a result of the examination, it shall be permitted, but if there are special circumstances, such as the need for substantial public interest, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7043, Dec. 10, 2002). However, there is no dispute that the application in this case does not conflict with the limitation stipulated by the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Building Act, etc., and therefore, the issue in this case is, contrary to

2) In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen above, i.e., our village community agreement was made before the Plaintiff purchased the instant land, and the land for detached houses that it was purchased by the village residents or their owners is merely part of the relocation complex. ② Since the above resident agreement does not have any legal basis, it is difficult to deem that there is a valid effect to restrict the building permit under the public law upon the instant application to the Plaintiff, who is not a party to the agreement. ③ The instant land is located at the end of the north east of the relocation complex, and the said relocation complex is located within the village, and the development was not completed until now, and it is difficult to view that there is a building of 3 floors in our village, and thus it is difficult to view that there is a concern that the surrounding landscape or the view right is likely to be infringed due to construction of the instant building, even if considering all circumstances such as the characteristics as the relocation complex and the situation of our village community agreement, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s application for the instant building need to be revoked, as part of property.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

Judges Jin Jins

Judges Gindu