1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 17, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit (hereinafter “instant building permit”) from the Defendant for animal-related facilities (non-psychines, dysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysys

B. On October 15, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the commencement date with the scheduled commencement date set on March 2, 2009 to the Defendant on October 16, 2008, and obtained approval from the Defendant on October 16, 2008. The Plaintiff received the commencement report on October 15, 2009, and then withdrawn the next commencement report.

C. On September 5, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the instant building permit pursuant to Article 11(7) of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that it constitutes “where construction works have not been commenced within one year from the date on which the building permit was granted,” following the prior notification of disposition.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the disposition to revoke the instant building permit, but the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said appeal on March 30, 2015.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 21, 22, Eul Nos. 3, 9, 10, 15, 17 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant building cannot be deemed identical to the establishment of general housing or buildings with the single storys and the meaning of the commencement of construction. As such, the Plaintiff’s completion of preparation for concrete carboning work at the mountainous district to the newly constructed part of the instant building constitutes the commencement of construction for the construction of a new building. Therefore, the instant disposition that revoked the instant construction permit on the ground that the Plaintiff did not commence construction within one year from the date of obtaining the permission is unlawful. 2) The instant disposition was unlawful without undergoing the hearing procedure under Article 86 of the Building Act.

3. Since the construction permit of this case, the defendant has approved the extension of permission for mountainous district conversion every year.