1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

This part of the judgment of the court is the same as the statement in the "1. Reasons for the decision of the court of first instance". Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment on the Defendant’s defense of this case

A. The Defendant, prior to September 2013, notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant building permit was revoked by the Defendant. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on December 27, 2013 after the lapse of 90 days from the said lawsuit, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the part of the claim for revocation of the building permit among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it exceeds the filing period.

B. In the case of an administrative disposition on which the other party exists, barring any special provision, such administrative disposition becomes effective upon notification to the other party in accordance with the general legal doctrine of declaration of intention. Thus, when the other party becomes aware of the existence of such administrative disposition by notifying the other party of such fact, the period for filing a lawsuit under Article 20(1)

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du8254, Sept. 25, 2014).

If Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 show the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant sent a notice of revocation of building permit to the plaintiff on April 5, 2013 by registered mail, but returned to the plaintiff on April 18, 2013, and thereafter, it can be recognized that the notice of revocation of building permit was sent again to the plaintiff by ordinary mail. However, there is no evidence to support that the defendant sent the notice of revocation of building permit by ordinary mail to the plaintiff.

Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, the first item in Eul evidence No. 3 is to the effect that the revocation disposition of the building permit in this case was made without considering the fact that the plaintiff submitted a written opinion about the first item before the revocation disposition of the building permit in this case.