1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit to newly construct a site area of 2,763.5 square meters, building area of 1,532.04 square meters, total area of 35,227.1625 square meters, total number of parking spaces of 329 square meters, total number of 6 stories, 6 stories underground, and 26 stories business facilities of 26 stories above ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

The above site was designated as a central commercial area, etc. under the former National Land Utilization and Planning Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

B. On June 11, 2012, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the application for the above building permit.

Matters that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement were the content of requesting the Plaintiff to comply with the project plan in the same manner as the first construction deliberation matters (such as entrance documents, pipes, drainage, water supply, and the current status of the installation of party walls) in each unit of the instant building.

On June 18, 2012, the defendant requested the plaintiff to review whether the officetel facility standards, etc. are complied with (Separation of the main entrance and exit for other purposes) additionally.

C. After that, the Defendant continued to request the Plaintiff to supplement additional matters on July 9, 2012, August 10, 2012, and August 14, 2012.

The main contents of the building of this case are two independent entrances by each head of each unit of the building of this case, so it is possible to arbitrarily divide a head office inside the building, and thus, it is inappropriate to establish the annexed parking lot (one unit per household). The main entrance of an officetel for other purposes may be separated from that of other purposes, and thus, the reliability of the architectural administration may be at issue.

On August 31, 2012, the defendant held a civil petition conciliation committee with respect to the above application for building permit, and the civil petition conciliation committee deliberated on the non-permission of the above application on the same day.

The reason for non-permission is as follows, unlike the plane plan at the time of the first construction deliberation.