1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Basic facts, each of the 1 billion won investments and jointly owned by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”), the Plaintiffs decided to construct a unmanned telecom, which is an accommodation, on the land of 3,484 square meters in Jeju-si, E prior to 1,635 square meters in Jeju-si, and on the ground of 112 square meters in the F Graveyard in Jeju-si, which is owned by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd

On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff Company: (a) made the building area of 601.65 square meters and the total floor area of 655.48 square meters on the ground of 2,040 square meters in Jeju-si, Jeju-si; and (b) obtained a building permit for the main purpose from the Defendant as an accommodation facility.

Plaintiff

B On April 9, 2013, the building area is 612.01 square meters and the total floor area is 657.64 square meters on the ground of 1,616 square meters of a site area among the land in Jeju-si and E from the Defendant on April 9, 2013, and the main purpose is to obtain a building permit granted for accommodation facilities.

Plaintiff

C On April 22, 2013, the building area is 612.01 square meters and the total floor area is 657.64 square meters on the ground of 1,575 square meters among the land in Jeju-si, Jeju-si, E, and F from the Defendant, and the main purpose is to obtain a building permit granted for accommodation facilities.

(A) On September 12, 2014, the Defendant revoked the previous building permit for the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 11(7) of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not commence construction work for at least one year after obtaining the previous building permit.

On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit and a permit for development and a permit for diversion of farmland to obtain a building permit again after the previous building permit was revoked ex officio.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant applications”). On December 2, 2014, the Defendant did not grant each of the instant applications to the Plaintiffs for the following reasons.

(hereinafter referred to as “disposition in this case”)