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

A. On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff intended to newly construct a single house, purchased 707/107/1080 of the previous 3,469 square meters from the 3,469 square meters, and completed the registration of ownership transfer by purchasing the remainder of the above B land and the 1,686 square meters prior to C among the above land on October 30, 2012. Each of the above land was combined on November 22, 2012, and became 5,155 square meters prior to C (hereinafter “instant application site”).

In the vicinity of the instant application, there are cultural heritage E, “F,” “G,” “H, etc., located in Do-type cultural heritage E, Si-Gun, Si-Gun.

B. On February 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with F, a Do-designated cultural heritage asset, seeking permission for the alteration of the current state of the designated cultural heritage asset to newly construct a detached house at a distance of about 85 meters with F, a Do-designated cultural heritage asset, and filed an application with the Defendant for permission for the alteration of the current state of the designated cultural heritage asset with the Defendant, and the Defendant

As a result of deliberation: Grounds for rejection (Opinion of the Cultural Heritage Committee) - This case is intended to newly construct a detached house by changing the form and quality of the previous land, and if a construction act is conducted, it is desirable to deny the construction act as it may affect G, etc., including “F” connected to (in terms of topography, natural environment, and historical landscape). - If the environment in the surrounding area is damaged by artificial structures (construction, etc.), it is likely to impair the characteristics of cultural heritage closely connected to the historical and landscape and natural landscape of the surrounding area of cultural heritage.

On April 15, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition denying the Plaintiff’s application for permission for change of the current state (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the following grounds, according to the results of the on-site investigation and deliberation by the Gyeonggi-do Cultural Heritage Committee, and the Defendant sent the result of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the same day.

On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the relevant claim on January 17, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap 2.