1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On November 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a report on the change of construction participants under Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act (hereinafter “the instant report”) with the Defendant on the content of changing the name of the owner of a building (hereinafter “D”) from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and submitted a written consent to the change of the name of the owner and a certificate of personal seal impression of D on August 1, 2017, when the Plaintiff submitted a written consent to the change of the name of the owner of a building as well as a written consent to the change of the name of the owner of a building on August 1, 2017.

The main purpose of the building permit in the instant site was “sales facilities”, and the relevant official text stated the use as “sales facilities (1-3 floors), medical facilities (4 floors), educational research facilities (5-6 floors), and neighborhood living facilities (7 floors).”

(B) On June 25, 2012, which was before the instant report, the main purpose of which is to be permitted was changed to a sales facility (urban residential housing) which is a multi-family housing, on June 25, 2012.

In the relevant official text, its use is written as "sales facilities and urban-type residential housing (house 88 households)".

(B) No. 4-1). On November 6, 2017, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the instant report by stipulating that “the ownership of the instant building site shall be secured,” and on December 1, 2017, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to supplement the instant report by December 15, 2017, on the ground that the instant supplement was not supplemented.

However, the plaintiff did not comply with the above request for supplementation by the above deadline.

On December 19, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant report on the ground that: (a) the supplement to the Plaintiff’s failure to secure ownership of the instant land was not supplemented by the deadline; and (b) the instant report was not supplemented by the deadline.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [The grounds for recognition] are without dispute, entry in Gap's 1 to 3, Eul's 1 to 5, and Eul's 8 (including each number), and arguments.