1. The motion for intervention by the Intervenor joining the Defendant is dismissed.

2. Attached to the Plaintiff on March 24, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Incorporated Foundation B (hereinafter “the Foundation”) obtained a building permit for new construction of buildings with three underground and 12 floors above the land of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, D, E, F, and G (each of the above land was merged into C on September 11, 2007; hereinafter the above combined land was referred to as “No. 1”). On January 9, 2007, the Incorporated Foundation B (hereinafter “the Foundation”) started a new building construction work.

B. The Foundation of this case received modified permission from the Defendant by filing an application for modification of the building permit with the Defendant as follows.

(A) On August 13, 2007, the details of the change of the date of the permission for the change of the sequence are as follows: (a) the increase of a lot area of 456 square meters on August 13, 2007; (b) the increase of a total floor area of 2,308.35 square meters on a ground; and (c) the change of a lot number of floors from 12 stories to 8 stories on February 21, 2008; and (d) the increase of a lot number of land (the combination of land with the above land) and the increase of a lot area of 5.7 square meters on a site area

(3) A building permit in attached Form 3, the total floor area of which is reduced by 132.18 square meters, means a building permit stated in the details of the building permit.

The change of this case is referred to as "the change of this case."

On October 25, 2011, changes in the external form of a building and reduction in the total floor area of 191.04 square meters

C. On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the revocation of the instant building permit; however, on March 24, 2016, the Defendant sent a reply to the effect that the revocation of the instant building permit was impossible due to the following reasons.

(hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”). The Plaintiff, which is merely a landowner, is prohibited from exercising the right to the instant alteration permission.

The building owner did not file an application for cancellation of the building permit, and does not fall under the grounds for cancellation of the building permit under Article 11 (7) of the Building Act, and the need for public interest that should not be revoked is greater than the disadvantage that the building owner will suffer.

A new building is maintained with a building permit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and 8 shall include various numbers.