1. On February 5, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to file an application for a building permit with the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

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

B. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit (hereinafter “instant application”) with the purpose of changing the third floor of the instant building from the first Class II neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) to cultural and assembly facilities (general restaurants) and expanding the fourth floor.

C. On February 5, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of non-permission on the ground that the main purpose of the part subject to the instant application falls under a wedding hall, not a meeting place, and that parking and transport measures in accordance with the traffic impact assessment standards are essential in accordance with the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is operating a large-scale congested restaurant in the instant building with the main focus on holding various meetings and meetings based on this.

In addition, the purpose of the application of this case is to use the building part for the purpose of the conference room linked to the waste restaurant.

Nevertheless, the defendant concluded that the purpose of the application in this case is a wedding business and was illegal since the disposition in this case was made.

(b)as shown in Appendix 2 of the relevant statute.

C. (1) Unless an application for permission for change of use is in conflict with any restriction prescribed by relevant laws, such as the Building Act, a person who has the authority to grant permission for change of use of a building under relevant laws and regulations, is naturally required to grant a building permit under the same Act, and even if there is no need for significant public interest, permission to a person meeting the requirements for reasons other than the grounds for restriction prescribed by relevant laws and regulations is not denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du8274, Aug. 28, 201