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

A. On March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a petition indicating the mark as follows (hereinafter “instant petition”).

No. 1: A summary of a petition for change of land category in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City: A civil petition for change of land category in accordance with a written consent for use, road package, and a written consent for use that is forged in order to obtain permission for a D factory in Incheon Seo-gu: C, B, and land category change:

B. On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff received a return of the instant petition in accordance with the guidance of the public official in charge.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap-8 and Gap-22, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defense and judgment of this case

A. The defendant's main defense does not constitute a disposition rejecting the plaintiff's application for land category change.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. In principle, an expression of intent to file an application with a judgment administrative agency should be clearly and definitely recorded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13236, Sept. 24, 2004). However, Article 17(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an expression of intent in a document seeking a certain disposition against an administrative agency shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the contents of the document and the process, time, and purport of the preparation and submission.

On the other hand, it is illegal that an administrative agency's refusal of an application by a private person based on legal or cooking rights without justifiable grounds or failure to make a certain disposition within a reasonable period of time is illegal.

However, in order to consider that an administrative agency's measure constitutes a rejection disposition as to the above application, the decision of the administrative agency's final and practical refusal should be considered to be different from the situation in which the applicant becomes aware of the decision by the competent administrative agency.

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on September 25, 1990