A. From around March 199, the Plaintiff obtained permission to display the signboards listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter referred to as “C signboard” and the signboards listed in the separate sheet 2 as “D signboard”) from the Suwon market. On June 1999, the Plaintiff obtained permission to display the outdoor advertisements on the rooftop signboards listed in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter referred to as “E signboard”). Since the period of permission to display has been extended later, C signboard was extended until March 22, 2013; D signboard was up to March 6, 2013; and E signboard was up to June 1, 2013.

B. On March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for the extension of the display period of C and D signboards, respectively, by March 22, 2016 and March 6, 2016. However, on March 29, 2013, the Suwon Si filed an application for permission for the extension of the display period of outdoor advertisements. On March 29, 2013, “The display period of C and D signboards is not extended in accordance with the announcement on the designation of a specific area, such as outdoor advertisements, etc., including a day-time in the orchard Station, and the restriction on display and mitigation of display (hereinafter “instant announcement”). The Plaintiff removed each of the above signboards (hereinafter “the first reply”).

C. On May 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for extension of outdoor advertisement display with the display period of the E signboard extended by June 1, 2016 at Suwon-si, and on June 11, 2013 at Suwon-si.

For the same reasons as indicated in paragraph (1), C, D, and E signboard extension is not possible, and each of the above signboards is removed (hereinafter “the second reply”). D.

On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff delegated the revocation suit against the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, regarding the disposition rejecting the extension of display period of each of the instant signboards, and delivered all relevant materials, such as the instant first and second replies.

E. Accordingly, on August 7, 2013, the Defendant’s second reply against the Suwon District Court F (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Suwon District Court on behalf of the Plaintiff, respectively.