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

A. The Plaintiff’s application for the construction permit in 2016 and the Defendant’s rejection disposition are as follows: (i) the Plaintiff is the Seo-gu Busan and one parcel (hereinafter “instant building site”).

(2) On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a review on landscape for construction of business facilities (offices) with a 14th floor above the ground level, 1,977 square meters above the total floor area, and 1,977.61 square meters above the ground level. On February 15, 2016, the landscape committee decided to review the contents that “the vehicle and pedestrians are planned to pass through a road with a width of less than four meters, making it impracticable for the vehicle to walk and interfere with the pedestrian environment, thereby hindering the pedestrian environment.” (2) On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a review on the construction permission (hereinafter “former application”).

3) On May 12, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for non-permission on the ground that “the application site is located at a low-rise house, and it is impossible to walk the vehicle due to a narrow road (2.5m) on the front site due to the narrow width of the road (2.5m) on the site due to the matters on which an application for a building permit was filed on the 1st floor and the 9th floor above the ground level (office 38, the number of parking spaces). In the event of a construction work, the traffic problem of the residents following the completion of the building, the traffic problem of the vehicle, the traffic problem of the residents due to the entry of the vehicle, and the concern about the hindrance of the pedestrian environment and the safety accident of the residents, taking into account the narrow road width, the number of floors is adjusted to the low-rise floor that does not obstruct the passage of the vehicle and the pedestrian environment, and the vehicle, parking, and the pedestrian moving plan suitable for the size of

(B) The Plaintiff’s previous rejection disposition of the instant case is in violation of the principle of equality and proportionality, as well as the grounds for the rejection disposition of the instant case.