1. On December 18, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of rejecting an application for building permit filed against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for deliberation by the Building Committee pursuant to Article 4-2(1) of the Building Act with the Defendant on June 25, 2015, to construct a religious facility (a church; hereinafter “instant religious facility”) on the ground of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Land (hereinafter “instant land”) with the following shapes and materials:

B. Accordingly, the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Building Committee (hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan City Building Committee”) held on July 17, 2015 derived from the deliberation result to the effect that it is inappropriate to newly construct the instant religious facility on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant deliberation result”) on the grounds that “the construction of the instant religious facility is inappropriate for the purpose of creating the urban landscape in harmony with the neighboring areas, such as the review of the landscape plan, such as the surface of the building, color, and measures to resolve social conflicts with local residents,” and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant deliberation result pursuant to Article 4-2(2) of the Building Act on July 20, 2015.

C. On October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to construct the instant religious facility on the instant land without filing an application for reexamination of the results of the instant deliberation (Article 4-2(3) of the Building Act) (hereinafter “application for permission to construct the instant religious facility”). D.

On October 26, 2015, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement each of the following to the effect that “the result of the instant deliberation (in the face of a building for the formation of an urban landscape in harmony with the neighboring area, the review of a landscape plan, such as the entry of the building, color, etc.) is reflected” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). As the Plaintiff did not comply with the request, the Defendant returned the instant application for construction permit (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on December 18, 2015, on the following grounds.

The review result of this case (the review of landscape plan, such as the surface of the building, color, etc. for the formation of urban landscape in harmony with the surrounding areas) shall be reflected.