1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The land in the Republic of Korea located in the annexed Form No. 1, the G was developed and sold as an electric resource complex from around 2000 to the point of sale. Among them, the Plaintiff owns and resides in the land owned by the Plaintiff in H large 553 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”), and adjacent thereto, B owns one thousand and sixty67 square meters prior to I, J, 90 square meters prior to J, and 589 square meters prior to K (hereinafter “B-owned land”).

B. On August 20, 2006, the name M in B’s husband L name L name, around August 20, 2006, filed an application for permission to engage in the alteration of the form and quality of land with respect to the Defendant for the purpose of constructing a separate house and parking zone on the land owned by B (the part where permission was granted on the attached drawing) (at the time J and the Plaintiff’s land boundary retaining wall was at the height of 4.8m and the retaining wall on the land owned by the Plaintiff was at the height of 5m) and permission to engage in construction including permission to engage in the development activities around November 8, 206.

Since then, the title holder of the building permit is changed to B.C.

B On December 13, 2010, the Defendant filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for changing the form and quality of land with respect to I, K total 1,656 square meters of land owned by B (hereinafter “the instant application site”) for the purpose of creating a site for farmland (i) the height of the retaining wall on the boundary of land owned by the Plaintiff and I, the height of the retaining wall on the boundary between K and N, is 7.7 meters, the height of the retaining wall on the boundary between K and N; hereinafter “instant retaining wall”) and the permission to engage in development activities (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with the Defendant on January 31, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, 29, each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's disposition of this case should be revoked because it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) According to Article 83 of the Building Act and Article 118(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, in the case of a retaining wall with a height exceeding 2 meters, permission and management should be granted in accordance with the Building Act and subordinate statutes, but the Defendant is in accordance with the Building Act and subordinate statutes.