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 December 15, 2009, the Defendant permitted six persons including the Plaintiff, etc. to engage in development activities (such as changing land form and quality) to establish access roads to neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant access roads”) with respect to a total of 1,582 square meters of Sinjin-si B, C, and D.

Location: The area of access roads to neighborhood living facilities (permission for development activities, permission for conversion of mountainous district, and permission for diversion of farmland): 1,582 square meters business period from December 2, 2009 to November 30, 201.

On February 15, 2012, the Defendant changed the project period of the above permission for development activities to November 30, 2012. Of the land subject to the above permission for development activities, the Defendant changed B to E, and C to F, respectively.

C. On May 13, 2014, the Defendant revoked permission for development activities pursuant to Article 133(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on the ground that “After obtaining permission for development activities from the Japan under Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Defendant did not complete construction works even after completion of construction works within the permitted period, and did not obtain permission for alteration (extension of the permitted period) after the expiration of the permitted period.”

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1, 2, and 17-2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff completed the construction work on an access road within the development permit period of the instant case.

After the completion of construction, the remaining permitting authorities, excluding the Plaintiff and G, oppose the opening of access roads and install a retaining wall in part of the access roads of this case. If the Plaintiff removes the access roads through relevant civil litigation, there is no difficulty in normally using the access roads and applying for the completion approval.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s revocation of the instant development permit on the ground that the construction was not completed is illegal.