The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant supplementary intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A building permit is of the character of material nature and an administrative agency shall conduct formal examination only with regard to personal elements, such as who the owner or landowner is, when granting the permit;

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2296, May 13, 2010). In a case where a project owner obtained a written consent from the landowner to use the land and obtained a building permit of the nature of an object in which a building is constructed on such land, but loses the right to use the relevant land due to a cause attributable to the project owner prior to the commencement of the construction, the land owner, who may interfere with the exercise of the ownership of the land due to the existence of the building permit, may file an application for the withdrawal of the building permit.

Therefore, the act of refusing such a request by a landowner is subject to appeal litigation.

On the other hand, although there was no particular defect at the time of the disposition, and there was no separate legal ground for the withdrawal of the disposition after the disposition, but there was no change in circumstances where it is no longer necessary to continue the original disposition, or where it is necessary for the important public interest, the disposition agency which made an administrative act may withdraw it

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004). However, in cases where a person cancels or withdraws or suspends a beneficial administrative act, the exercise of the right of revocation, etc., even if there exist grounds such as revocation, is necessary to protect the necessity of important public interest or the interests of a third party, which would justify the infringement of the right of revocation, and can be permitted only when the necessity of public interest, etc., is strong enough to justify the disadvantage that the other party suffers, compared to the disadvantage that the other party receives.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du27322, Mar. 15, 2012). 2. The record reveals the following facts.