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 November 7, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant for a housing construction project plan to build apartment and ancillary welfare facilities (hereinafter “instant project”) with a total floor area of 75,999.1 square meters on the ground of 22,055 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) of Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, and 86 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of the commencement period of the instant project on the ground of extreme serious housing competition erosion. On November 4, 2009, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff on November 7, 2010 to extend the commencement period of the said project until November 7, 2010 (the first type). On November 3, 2010, the Plaintiff approved the extension of the commencement period of the said project by November 7, 201 (the second type).

C. The Plaintiff again filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of the construction commencement of the instant project on the ground of settling the overall construction competition. On November 4, 201, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff to extend the commencement period to November 6, 201 (j) and approved the extension of the commencement period to November 29, 201 by November 201 (j).

On October 29, 2013, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to commence the project until November 6, 2013, and sent a notice to Daegu-gu C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s domicile”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s domicile”), which is the Plaintiff’s domicile, that the approval of the instant project plan may be revoked if the instant project plan is not commenced without justifiable grounds, but returned to the Plaintiff’s unknown address.

E. However, on November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of the construction period of the instant project on the ground of ownership disputes over some parcels of the instant site. On November 4, 2013, the Defendant sent a notice to the Plaintiff on November 4, 2013, stating that the extension of the construction period was impossible due to the following reasons, but the dispute over some parcels of the instant site presented for the extension of the extension period due to the extension of the extension of the thickness (Evidence A 6) is related to the confirmation of the absence of the third party’s obligation.