The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 21, 1992, the Plaintiff newly constructed a house of the first basement and the second floor size on the ground (the total floor area: 298.05 square meters; hereinafter “the instant building”) on the ground of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and owned it until now.

B. On March 27, 2014, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor publicly announced the modification of, and related topographical drawings of, the urban management planning (the highest height district) announced by Seoul Special Metropolitan City public notice C (hereinafter “instant urban management planning”). Under the instant urban management planning, the area where the instant building is located was designated as the “the highest height district” where the height of the building is limited to not more than 1.5m on the basis of the southsan Metropolitan City’s surface (which is less than 1.5m higher than the said road).

However, under the premise that the area where the building of this case was located was designated as the "the highest height district", the Plaintiff asserts the illegality of the rejection disposition of this case as follows. However, the instant urban management plan basically constitutes the content of changing the height regulation method of the area designated as the "the highest height district", and the actual area where the building of this case is located was designated as the "the highest height district" in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's notification D on April 6, 1995, and the said area is not subject to the particularly strengthened height restriction than the relocation through the instant urban management plan.

Therefore, contrary to the allegations by the Plaintiff, there is room to view that the Plaintiff would not be subject to restrictions on construction due to the instant urban management plan.

On the other hand, the building of this case was constructed prior to the designation of the district, and it had already exceeded the above height limit at the time of new construction.

(c)

On September 10, 2019, the Plaintiff prepared an application for permission for substantial repair to the Defendant on the condition that the roof trusses of the instant building is repaired (the content of the building: the installation of a roof roof roof gate), but submitted it (hereinafter the Plaintiff).