1. On July 21, 2014, the Defendant applied for an application to the Plaintiff for an act within a development restriction zone (a change of building permit matters).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B 516 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”) located within the development restriction zone, and C is the owner of D 58 square meters in Yangju-si, adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”).

B. C acquired a house on the adjoining land of this case on February 14, 1986. As to the relationship between the adjoining land of this case and the adjoining land of this case, C has used the current road of 2 m to 2.8m in width, which exists on the same part of the land of this case as the access road of this case.

C. On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff opened an access road with a width of 2 meters for the land adjacent to the instant case, filed an application for permission for an act (construction) within a development restriction zone with the content of constructing neighborhood living facilities on the instant land, and obtained permission from the Defendant pursuant to Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 11 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant permission”).

As a dispute arises between the Plaintiff and C regarding access roads to the instant adjacent land, the Plaintiff and C agreed to open access roads with a width of 3 meters at the right side of the instant land instead of the access roads with a width of 2 meters. On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff, instead of access roads to the right side of the instant land from the Defendant, was permitted to open access roads with a width of 3 meters at the right side of the right side of the instant land in a development-restricted zone (a change

E. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff continued to have a dispute between the Plaintiff and C even after obtaining permission to engage in an act within a development restriction zone (a building alteration). On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in an act (a change of building permit matters) within a development restriction zone (hereinafter “instant application for change”), which reduces the width of the access road from 3m to 1.5m, but the Defendant returned the application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on July 21, 2014, and the reasons for rejection are as follows:

The place where the application for permission is filed.