1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “five persons, including the Plaintiff”) was the owner of 1,154.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “five persons, including the Plaintiff”) obtained a construction permit from the Defendant for the construction of Class 1 neighborhood living facilities (finite and retail stores) with the total floor area of 9,175.9 square meters on the instant land.

(hereinafter “instant building permit”). (b)

Plaintiff

5) On April 2, 2015, 5 sold the instant land to H, and thereafter, H established the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and subsequently re-preparation the real estate sales contract with the Intervenor joining the Defendant as the buyer.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 24, 2015 with respect to the instant land on April 24, 2015.

C. Since then, there was a dispute over the transfer of the shares of the Intervenor joining the Defendant and the change of the title of the instant building permit between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and the Defendant did not report the commencement of construction within one year after obtaining the instant building permit. Accordingly, on December 11, 2015, the Defendant revoked the instant building permit pursuant to Article 11(7) of the Building Act after giving prior notice of disposal to five persons including the Plaintiff, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 12, Eul evidence No. 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff filed an application for the hearing and the extension of the commencement of the construction permit with the Defendant prior to the instant disposition. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not undergo the hearing in the process of rendering the instant disposition, and did not comply with the legitimacy of the application for the extension of the commencement of construction. As such, Article 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and the Civil Petitions Handling Act (hereinafter “Civil Petitions Handling Act”).

In violation of Article 15.