1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities regarding the instant forest (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on May 10, 2016, to construct an apartment on Eunpyeong-gu Seoul and C forest land 2,139 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a supplementary notice to the Plaintiff on May 19, 2016 to the effect that “the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the instant forest falls under the case where the topographical area of Article 11 [Attachment 4] subparag. 2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Urban Planning (hereinafter “Ordinance”); and (b) calculated the gradient as the method of measuring the gradient of the instant forest; (c) on the ground that the instant forest fell under the case where the topographical area of Article 11 [Attachment 4] subparag. 2(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Ordinance is changed into a horizontal area; and (d) thus, the Defendant issued a supplementary notice to the effect that “the Plaintiff is a drawing shipment

C. However, as the Plaintiff did not submit the documents ordering the Defendant to supplement, the Defendant rejected the instant application documents pursuant to Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Ordinance on June 1, 2016 and Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 10 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the forest of this case is a dysure and has a little number of expertise in the middle part, and thus, Article 11 [Attachment Table 4] 2 subparag. 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Ordinance or (2) of the instant Ordinance constitutes a case where the topography is changed depending on the section. Therefore, when calculating the gradient of the instant forest according to the method of measuring the gradient under the above (1) or (2), the forest of this case satisfies the gradient requirements (less than 21∑) stipulated in Article 24 [Attachment Table 1] of the instant

On the other hand, the instant ordinances asserted that the Defendant constituted forest land of this case.