2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On January 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction report (the legal fiction of permission for development acts) to construct a first class neighborhood living facility (retailing stores) with a total floor area of 94.64 square meters on the land of Pyeongtaek-si Dong (hereinafter “B Dong”) owned by the Plaintiff, in order to construct a first class neighborhood living facility (retail stores) with a total floor area of 1,550

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant land,” and the said application is deemed to have been filed. B.

The land of this case is located in the production green area, and its specific location and present status are as follows:

A status photograph of cadastral map C

C. The Plaintiff’s above report includes an application for permission to occupy and use the part corresponding to “the section of the application for permission to connect” of current status photographs connected to D and E roads located in the instant land (the original form at the bottom of the right side of the front of the above status photographs; hereinafter “instant subordinate roads”) with the permission granted by the Plaintiff, which is located under the higher level indicated as “the section of the connection prohibition” from the above present status photographs.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant application section”). D is a place publicly notified as a road zone for the precise packaging of F road, and the permission to occupy and use the road is granted, and is currently used as a public bus depot for buses.

On February 28, 2018, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application.

The reason is that there is no result of consultation with the defendant road business and the road occupancy and use of the road, and in detail, the road occupancy and use of the road is not possible because it conflicts with the prohibition section of multi-level intersection connection among the calculation standards of the connecting section of the attached Table 4 of Article 6 (Prohibition Section of Connection Permission) of the Ordinance on Connection between Pyeongtaek-si Road and other facilities.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") of this case. The defendant reviewed the relevant statutes and standards and gave guidance to the plaintiff to secure and apply for a road so that the plaintiff can enter the building site after obtaining an application therefor.

The defendant's refusal is the case.