1. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on January 17, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff purchased (No. 1) a 142 square meters in the wife population C (hereinafter “instant land”) from B on March 9, 2016, and around July 2016, the Plaintiff constructed a single house (hereinafter “instant house”) with a multi-family house (five households) with a total floor area of 67.74 square meters (136.26 square meters) on the ground of the instant land to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant road”) on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff constructed a multi-family house (5 households) with a multi-family house with a total floor area of 67.74 square meters (136.26 square meters) on the ground of the instant land; (b) the Plaintiff, who is a State-owned land adjacent to the instant land, was laid underground

As a result of the deliberation and resolution on permission for use of state-owned property (16-7), the pertinent state-owned land continues to be used for the same purpose. As such, permission for use is restricted. On July 27, 2016, the Defendant requested the head of Gyeonggi-nam Facilities Headquarters, the Ministry of National Defense, the competent authority of the Ministry of National Defense, (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Gyeonggi-Nam Facilities”) to consult about the “whether it is possible to pack a road for the purpose of construction and entry to be laid underground and opened, according to the application for the instant building permission (Article 1).” On January 13, 2017, the head of Gyeonggi-Nam Facilities Headquarters notified the Defendant of his opinion on the following grounds.

(2) On January 17, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition No. 2, which rejected the instant application on the ground of the instant notice to the Plaintiff. (No. 2) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2) The Plaintiff filed a construction permit application of this case with the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7-1, 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 1 and 2, and the purport and purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s motion for construction permit of this case is not included in matters of authorization and permission which need to be consulted with other administrative agencies pursuant to Article 11(5