1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting an application for building permit filed with the Plaintiff on December 28, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large scale 810 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and buildings.

On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit to construct a building on the instant land (the underground second floor, the five floors above ground, the building area of 469.09 square meters, the total floor area of 2,949.37 square meters).

B. 1) On November 17, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on November 17, 2017 stating that “The part of the instant land [see the attached drawings] is currently being used as the current state, and the inconvenience of the residents in closure and the occurrence of civil petitions against neighboring commercial buildings requires countermeasures, etc., and thus, I would like to supplement documents proving that the current state is not a road.” 2) The Plaintiff sent a notice to the Defendant that “the land in dispute is classified as “the land category is,” and is not excluded from the site area at the time of the construction permit in 1983. If the construction permit is not granted on the grounds that there is inconvenience of residents and civil petitions against neighboring commercial buildings, it would be excessively infringed upon the landowner’s property.”

C. The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission on construction on December 28, 2017, on the ground that “The key land included in the instant land is a road connected to the C apartment, the rear door, and the neighboring commercial buildings for at least 30 years, and many civil petitions such as traffic and inconvenience for residents are likely to occur during closure, and thus the preparation of countermeasures following closure is prior, and there is insufficient supplementary documents proving that the current status is not a road, as alleged by the Plaintiff.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 1 through 4, and 7 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The key land of the Defendant’s assertion is being used as a road for not less than 30 years, and thus, residents are required to permit construction upon the Plaintiff’s application.