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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning for this part is that the court’s reasoning is as to this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the case where the court decides “written opinion for deliberation” in Section 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “written opinion for deliberation” (hereinafter “written opinion for deliberation of this case”), and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

The rejection of the application for each of the instant deliberation by the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the rejection of the application for each of the instant deliberation is legitimate or not is unlawful for the following reasons.

Upon receipt of an application for each deliberation of this case, the defendant shall refer the building permission and the landscape committee for the deliberation of the building in this case, as long as it is objectively unclear that the building permission is impossible.

However, the defendant rejected each of the applications of this case without referring it to the deliberation of the Building Committee and the Landscape Committee, although it cannot be objectively deemed impossible to permit construction of the building of this case.

The Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the application for each of the instant deliberation on the ground that “The construction plan and the drawings submitted at the time of the application for each of the instant deliberation were not reflected in most of the instant deliberation opinions, and the design drawing was erroneous, making it impossible to grant a building permit only by means of minor supplementation, and not satisfying the requirements for deliberation on the landscape.”

However, most of the instant deliberation opinions were reflected in the construction plan and deliberation plan submitted at the time of the application for each of the instant deliberation. However, it was excluded from the part requiring excessive demands compared to the standards prescribed in the relevant statutes, and the error of the design documents is merely a minor clerical error or omission of some attached documents, and thus, it was possible to recover the defect merely by minor supplementation.

Therefore, the grounds for the disposition rejecting each of the applications for deliberation of this case are as follows.