1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an application for building permission (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the size of 1,897.7 square meters, the building area of 1,058.46 square meters, the total floor area of 2,352.97 square meters, and the building for the use of neighborhood living facilities with three floors above the ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 4, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the supplementary matters, as well as determined as a building as a building of a building deliberation division pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Building Act and Article 7(1)2(f) of the former Daegu Metropolitan City Building Ordinance (amended by Ordinance No. 4819, Dec. 30, 2015; hereinafter “Building Ordinance”). As such, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the supplementary matters and notified the building deliberation at the time of filing an application for the construction deliberation.

C. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs again of the additional supplement, and notified that “the time for filing an application for construction deliberation by April 14, 2015,” and that “the time for filing an application for construction deliberation by April 14, 2015,” and notified that the construction permission will be returned if no application for supplement and deliberation is filed within the time limit.” D.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs did not file an application for construction deliberation, and the defendant, on April 15, 2015, did not file an application for deliberation in spite of the plaintiffs' request two or more times on April 15, 2015, notified the plaintiffs to return the application in this case pursuant to Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act.

E) The Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiffs, but the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the request on June 29, 2015 (Seoul Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commissions). [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The construction of the building of this case claimed by the plaintiffs is not subject to the construction deliberation under the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, it is not necessary to undergo deliberation by the Building Committee.