1. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting an application for a building permit on the land outside Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu and 18 parcels, Yongsan-gu, the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) is a company operating with its head office and garage in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu.

B. The Plaintiff, as an in-house director of the above C, purchased the land (hereinafter “instant land”) outside 546 square meters, and 18 square meters, in order to relocate the headquarters and the garage of the C. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for construction permit with the Defendant on the instant land for the construction of the headquarters and the garage building of C.

C. On June 11, 2014, the Defendant’s Urban Planning Committee decided that the Plaintiff’s application for building permit cannot be accepted on the ground of “influence of location,” and the Plaintiff withdrawn the said application on June 16, 2014.

The Plaintiff filed an application for re-building permit to the Defendant on October 27, 2014 by supplementing a construction plan, such as creating soundproof forests on the boundary of the instant land, installing soundproof walls, and changing access roads to the instant land, in order to reduce damage to the surrounding residents due to the instant building.

(hereinafter “instant application”) . E.

On January 14, 2015, the Defendant’s Urban Planning Committee deliberated on the instant application and decided to reserve the construction permit, and the written resolution states that “Preparation of supplementary measures for the grounds for rejection of the application (unreasonable locational conditions) and smooth consultation with residents” as the grounds for reservation.

On the other hand, on January 22, 2015, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the above resolution by the urban planning committee.

F. On January 23, 2015, the Defendant held a meeting for consultation between the Plaintiff and the E-village residents around the instant land, but did not reach an agreement between the Plaintiff and the residents.

G. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant determined that consultation between the Plaintiff and the residents is impossible, and decided to reserve the building permit by holding a deliberation by the again Urban Planning Committee on the instant application. The Defendant on March 16, 2015.