1. On July 4, 2017, the Defendant’s ground against the Plaintiff on July 4, 2017, 418-1.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a public institution affiliated with the Ministry of Justice that supports rehabilitation of rehabilitation recipients, including those released from prison.

B. The Plaintiff intended to establish a branch office of the Gyeonggi-do Dong-dong branch in order to carry out the business of supporting persons eligible for protection. On November 29, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased, as its site, the land of Gwangju Metropolitan City, Dayang-ro 418-1 large scale 698 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for the construction of 3 stories above ground, 277.95 square meters above ground, and 1 Dong of educational and research facilities with a total floor area of 696.45 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land (hereinafter “instant application”).

On March 9, 2017, the Defendant had the Urban Planning Committee deliberate on the instant application, and the Urban Planning Committee required to obtain the consent of the residents in the neighborhood through the resident briefing sessions, etc. on the specific project plan, and to establish convenience facilities for facility users and landscaped green belt installation plan.

E. On July 4, 2017, the Urban Planning Committee rejected the Plaintiff’s briefing session to the effect that “The instant land is located on the side of the entrance of access roads to the village, affecting the residential environment of village residents entering the entrance and exit due to the relevant road, and the size of the site is narrow on the site that consists of shielding green areas to prevent civil petitions, resting areas, parking lots, etc., and thus, it is inappropriate to be located as educational and research facilities.”

F. On July 4, 2017, the Defendant returned the instant application to the Plaintiff on the ground that deliberation was rejected due to the deliberation results by the Urban Planning Committee under Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the same reasons as the above deliberation details (hereinafter “instant disposition”).