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

A. On August 18, 201, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to engage in development activities (such as changing land form and quality) to create a religious facility (a religious assembly site) on the ground of a total of 1,912 square meters of land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”) 347, 347-3, and 348 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”). On November 28, 201, the Plaintiff obtained permission to engage in the instant development activities to create a site for religious facilities (land form and quality; until August 16, 2013; hereinafter referred to as “instant development permission”). On November 28, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to change for the construction of religious facilities (a religious assembly site and a wing party installed in a religious facility) and obtained permission for change on December 6, 201

B. On December 9, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the Defendant on the instant land, and filed a commencement report on April 17, 2012. At the time, the Plaintiff did not report on the installation of a charnel house under the Act on Funeral Services, Etc. (hereinafter “the Funeral Act”).

On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a report on the establishment of the Curnum, but the Defendant rejected it on July 15, 2014, and thereafter, the Plaintiff filed three further reports, but the Defendant returned all of them until May 14, 2015.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation (this Court 2015Guhap53460, hereinafter “related case”) against the Defendant’s disposition of return on May 14, 2015, but was sentenced to the dismissal ruling on August 25, 2016, and the appeal and final appeal were dismissed, and the said ruling became final and conclusive on June 14, 2017.

C. Although the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to extend the period for the instant development activities on October 7, 2013 (from October 7, 2013 to October 6, 2014) and obtained permission for change on October 2, 2014 (from October 10, 2014 to October 9, 2015), the Plaintiff did not file an application for permission for change to extend the period again on or before October 9, 2015.

Article 133(1)5-2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the period of permission for development activities expires on March 2, 2016, and the Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on September 29, 2016.