1. In examining the records of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the original rejection of the Plaintiff’s letter of violation that deprived of the Plaintiff’s opportunity to defend himself/herself for the disciplinary procedure is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was any defect in the disciplinary procedure is groundless.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff Lee Jae-con, a summary of the fact that the judgment of the court below recognized the grounds of appeal by the grounds of appeal by the reasons of the disciplinary action of this case is that the constructor has secured the prescribed distance from neighboring land at the time of the application for the second construction design modification of this case, the increase in the area caused by the thickness of the wall and the violation of the construction and permitted matters of the 11th floor extension, and even if it was not corrected even if it was filed, it was not corrected. However, even in the case of the second design modification application, even though the building area based on the number indicated in the drawings attached to the application form and the building area based on the size of the building area based on the size were different from each other and the building area based on the size of the drawings attached to the application for the second design modification, it was impossible to find the facts in violation of the rules of evidence as seen above.

According to the evidence cited by the theory, it is common sense that the building area should be calculated on the basis of the number indicated on the ground plan in the application for building permit. However, in this case, the second application for the permission of change filed by the constructor who has a violation of extending the area already permitted, such as the number of buildings and the building area according to scale, are likely to violate the construction permit again after the detailed examination of the application drawing, and it is clear that there is an obligation to perform the affairs of the building permit again after the detailed examination of the application drawing, and therefore, the decision that the plaintiff who performed the affairs to be permitted as above did not reach the above should be justified in the judgment that determined that there was a ground for disciplinary action, and that the above circumstances were also included in the initial disciplinary action, and there is no ground for objection.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)