1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 2,414 square meters of forest C in Gangseo-si (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. On August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a construction report with the Defendant on the construction of a building site size of 1,743 square meters, building area of 218.04 square meters (land-to-land ratio of 12.5095%), total floor area of 398.16 square meters (floor ratio of 22.8434%), general steel structure of main structure, general steel structure, number of floors, two floors above ground, and second class neighborhood living facilities for main purpose (hereinafter “construction of this case”).

C. On August 22, 2017, the Defendant requested a consultation on conversion of the forest of this case, which is a quasi-preserved mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, to the head of Gangseo-gu City Mayor.

On August 30, 2017, the Gangnam Mayor sent a reply to the Defendant on the ground that the construction of this case does not comply with the purpose of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, which provides for the reduction of the efficiency of site utilization and the rational preservation of mountainous districts and the minimization of forest damage. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the building report of this case cannot be accepted for the same reason.

(hereinafter "the rejection disposition of this case"). [The grounds for recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that pine trees grow in the instant forest, but the instant construction is not aimed at extracting pine trees, and the neighboring land owned by the Plaintiff is already subject to a different building plan, and thus, the construction of a new building in the instant forest is planned in the instant forest.

The forest of this case is not visible from an expressway or a local highway, and permission for mountainous district conversion is granted to other land adjacent to an expressway.

The Plaintiff submitted a construction report on the instant forest land even in 2016, and subsequently reduced the scale of the instant building report upon recommendation to reduce the area of the mountainous district converted.