1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

The instant building site is a special-purpose area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act for the land of the said two lots, which is a 198 square meters and 2,192 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building site”), located between the Eshore Road (F) and the coastline of the Yellow Sea.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a building report (hereinafter “instant building report”) with the Defendant on October 4, 2013 in order to newly construct one unit of multi-household detached housing (a building area of 121.025 square meters, total floor area of 198.5 square meters; hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant building site.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff separately submitted an application for permission for development activities (No. 2-1-34) around October 2013 with respect to development activities deemed to change the form and quality of the instant building site by the instant building report. On the other hand, the said application was accompanied by a detailed statement, a quantity calculation statement, and a cross-section to create a building site at 27.5 meters for the part of the building site in the said building site by cutting the building site from 1506 cubic meters (No. 22-3 of the evidence No. 22) and cutting the ground height (GH) (No. 27.5 meters).

Accordingly, on October 21, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of consultation with the effect that “if a project plan is modified, an alteration agreement shall be obtained, and if a development act is not performed without any justifiable reason, an agreement shall be revoked.” On October 22, 2013, upon accepting the instant building report, the Defendant sent the same result of consultation with the certificate of completion of report, to the Plaintiff.

On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff commenced construction of the instant building and completed construction. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval for use of the instant building pursuant to Article 22 of the Building Act.

(A) The Plaintiff cut the ground of the instant building at 1.57m higher than the planned height (26.5m) by cutting the ground of the instant building at 568 cubic meters, unlike the first construction plan (No. 17 and No. 45m). The Plaintiff also cut the ground of the instant building at 29.07m higher than the planned height (26.5m).