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 September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit to newly construct one unit of general steel structure, Class II neighborhood living facilities for the temporary use of construction waste collection centers and one unit of storage facilities (the legal fiction of permission for development activities consisting of changing land form and quality) on the part of the Government-Si, Jung-si, 942 square meters and B 1,105 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval for installation of a temporary construction waste storage site on the construction waste collection center.

B. Meanwhile, around June 2014, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, requested deliberation on the Plaintiff’s permission to engage in development activities at the Government City Urban Planning Committee. Around July 2014, the said Committee, following deliberation, is inappropriate as a site for a temporary construction waste collection and transportation station depending on the regional conditions. A thorough measures for disposal of water water, malodor, dust, dust dust, scattering dust, etc. are formulated to ensure that the land in question is secured at least six meters from an access road and that there is no civil petition filed by neighboring residents, and re-established a plan for disposal of facilities so that the pents and temporary storage stations may harmonize with the surrounding scenery.

b) express its opinion that no civil petition is filed by neighboring residents;

C. On October 2, 2014, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the Plaintiff’s application for a construction permit with the content that the act of site construction of warehouse facilities in the instant land was the wind to re-consultation by reflecting the matters to be resolved by the Urban Planning Committee after deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee under Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. Accordingly, on October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff’s access road width is not 6 meters based on the existing existing road on October 28, 2014, and thus, it would expand the scope of the access road with the approval of use by the owner of the private land (i.e., E, F, G’s land use consent attached, and J, the owner of the private land, is missing, and thus, it would be expected to submit a written consent of land use to ascertain the future location).