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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 41 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) in Dao-si C (hereinafter “C”) and the Defendant is a public official working in Doo-si E.

B. Around March 16, 2004, F obtained a construction permit on G and newly built H around January 7, 2005, and obtained approval for use. Around April 2009, F obtained a construction permit on the land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, and obtained a construction permit on the land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, and obtained approval for use on September 2009.

C. From June 2010, the Plaintiff cut the Plaintiff’s land without obtaining permission from the competent authority, and conducted development activities, such as construction of a new building by changing the form and quality of I and G land without permission, and filed a civil petition to reinstate I and G land category and cancel the approval for use of H and the instant building on several occasions.

In relation to the change of the form and quality of the above land against which a civil petition was filed on August 2010 and the building permission for a building, the Si lawfully granted the building permission by holding a consultation with the development permission pursuant to Article 11(6) of the Building Act (see, e.g., deemed to have obtained the development permission). After that, the Si notified the Plaintiff to the effect that the change of form and quality and the building permission is lawful by deeming the completion inspection of the development activities related to the change of the form and quality to have been conducted according to

E. In relation to the building permit for the instant building, even though the land category was changed before the building permit had already been granted, public officials in charge were consulted about the permit for development activities. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Gando Police Station for a crime of neglecting their duties against public officials, including the Defendant, but the prosecutor dismissed the disposition on the ground that it is identical with the previous case, and the Plaintiff was dismissed.