1. On October 19, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to change permission granted to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Under Article 21 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 2988, Dec. 31, 1976) the land of this case was designated as a development-restricted area under Article 192 of the Construction Division Notice No. 192, Dec. 4, 1976.

B. At around 1974, prior to the designation of the instant land as a development restriction zone, Oral chemical company had engaged in the manufacturing industry by constructing factories and auxiliary facilities for the manufacture of petrochemical basic chemical substances on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “existing factories”).

C. On April 24, 2014, a chemical industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “fire-fighting industry”) filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in an act in a development-restricted area (building permission) to remove an existing factory and to newly build cement brick and block manufacturing factories (urban-type factory size of 333 square meters, size of structure size of 323.47 square meters). On May 23, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition for permission to engage in an act in a development-restricted area (hereinafter “instant permission”) pursuant to Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development-Restricted Industries (hereinafter “Restriction on Development-Restricted Areas”).

On June 16, 2014, the chemical industry filed an application with the Defendant for permission of alteration on part (the location of a building, the size of a structure, and the location) of the instant permitted matters, and on June 25, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of alteration of permission of acts within a development restriction zone against the chemical industry.

E. Meanwhile, on June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the right to new construction of a factory from the chemical industry, and subsequently reported the change of the construction participants to the Plaintiff from the chemical industry pursuant to Article 16 of the Building Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

F. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff is classified as an ancillary facility in part to the Defendant regarding the instant permit for activities.