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 construction site of this case is 1,499 square meters prior to the Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “instant construction site”) and the specific use area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is “Preservation management area”, and is located between the coastline of the Eshore (NNN) and the coastline of the sea in the Yellow Sea.

On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a building report (hereinafter “instant building report”) with the Defendant on December 17, 2013 in order to newly construct one unit of multi-household detached housing (a building area of 174.9 square meters, total floor area of 168.57 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. 2-3) around November 201, 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 Plaintiff attached a detailed statement, volume calculation statement, and cross-section to create a building site of 26.5 meters in height height (GH) of ground height (No. 19-4), 74 cubic meters in width with respect to the said building site.

Accordingly, on December 30, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of consultation on development activities that “if a project plan is modified, it shall undergo a modified consultation, and if a development act is not performed without any justifiable reason, it shall be revoked.” On January 9, 2014, upon accepting the instant building report, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff the result of the consultation on the said development activity along with the report completion certificate.

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.

(hereinafter “Application for Approval for Use of the instant Building.” However, unlike the initial construction plan, the Plaintiff came to have 2.45m higher than that of the ground height of the instant building (26.5m) by (i) construction of soil in the 707 cubic meters wide from cutting of the ground and (ii) raising the ground by 146m high of the ground height of the building (No. 17 & No. 37m).