1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list (A building, hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to display outdoor advertisements, etc. with the Defendant on October 15, 2012 via C and D’s E (hereinafter “E, etc.”) operating advertising planning B.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”). Specific contents of the instant application are intended to display a ED electronic display board (a virtual signboard; hereinafter referred to as the “instant electronic display board”) with a width of eight meters and length of six meters on the wall surface of the seventh floor of the instant building to advertise for public service and publicity.

C. On October 16, 2012, the Defendant rendered conditional permission to the Plaintiff.

The contents of the conditions of permission are ① voluntarily removed at the expiration of the period of permission (3 years) or immediately after the closure of business, and if the period of permission is to be extended, it is required to file an application for permission for extension 30 days before or after the expiration of the period of permission. ② If the permission is to be modified, it is required to obtain permission for modification in advance; ③ it is required to check and manage the safety of advertisements, etc. at all times in order to prevent damage to the general public due to damage

(hereinafter “instant permission”). D.

However, G, working in the Sungwon-si branch F of Sungwon-si, Changwon-si, deemed that the Plaintiff’s company listed in the instant application was a motion picture camera, and the instant building was perceived as a motion picture-related usage, not for the hospital purpose. Accordingly, the part of “Garo” as indicated in the type column of advertisement, etc. among the entries in the instant application written by the Plaintiff was deleted to reduce two, and then revised and entered as “public performance,” and as a result, the type of advertisement was also issued as “public performance signboard, not “rop,” instead of “rop.”

E. The plaintiff thereafter is the defendant of this case.