1. The revocation disposition against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2015 rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a building permit to construct a Class 2 neighborhood living facility with a total floor area of 298 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant land”) on the ground of 894 square meters (hereinafter “instant building permit”).

B. On September 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) newly constructing a building on the instant land; (b) Article 12(1)3-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation of Development Restriction Zones”); and (c) Enforcement Decree of the same Act [Attachment 1]

5. D.

C) The revocation of the instant construction permit (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant construction permit was not subject to the permit for relocation under paragraph (1).

(iii) [Grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4, and 10 (including branch numbers if any); hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is the owner of a neighborhood living facility within a development-restricted zone and is expected to be removed by the implementation of a public project. Thus, Article 12(1)1 (e) of the Development-restricted Zone Act and Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree

5. D.

C) Paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”).

(2) Article 12(1)3-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act, which is a provision on the right to remove houses, factories, or religious facilities, which had existed at the time of designation of a development restriction zone, was revoked by applying the instant building permit, unlike the Plaintiff’s case, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. (2) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s site for the Plaintiff’s neighborhood living facilities was removed from the development restriction zone prior to the implementation of public works does not have the right to remove the Plaintiff’s neighborhood living facilities. However, the rescission of a development restriction zone is needed during the process of public works.