1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of supplementary participation.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in livestock products breeding business, etc., operates the head office and farm (hereinafter “D farm”) in Gyeongcheon-si (hereinafter “Eri”), and ② operate a farm (hereinafter “K farm”) in Youngcheon-si Eri (hereinafter “Eri”) with a total of 29,752 square meters, G farm site 6,072 square meters, H farm site 2,767 square meters, 542 square meters, 3,107 square meters, and 42,240 square meters (hereinafter “the instant application site”).

B. On September 18, 2000, the Plaintiff constructed five main buildings (hereinafter referred to as “one building” or “five buildings”) and six auxiliary buildings in accordance with the sequences, as shown in attached Table 1, at the instant application site from the Defendant, with a building permit granted to build five main buildings (hereinafter referred to as “each building” in items (a) through (e) of attached Table 1) and six auxiliary buildings, and operated K farm at that place.

C. On December 15, 2014, while the Plaintiff operated K farm, the first building was destroyed by fire.

On December 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit (revision of permitted matters) with the content that the building area is 7,006.83 square meters in the place where the existing 1 building was destroyed, and the 1st floor on the ground level is reconstructed.

On May 28, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for the construction permit (revision) as follows:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). It is known that the application for a building permit (revision) was rejected due to the following reasons as a result of the deliberation by the Civil Petition Conciliation Committee in Yongcheon-si. A.

Date of deliberation: May 23, 2018

Results of Review: Rejection

C. Although it is intended to hold a civil petition coordination committee over 13 occasions on the ground of rejection and non-permission, both positions conflict rapidly, and the plaintiff did not seem to have any intention to consult with residents until now, and residents have reconstruction.