1. The plaintiff's action against the Minister of Environment shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Yang-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the head of Gyeyang-gu Gun for the alteration of the use recorded in the building ledger on the building B ground buildings of Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “instant building”) from retail stores to general restaurants.

B. On February 2, 2016, Defendant Yangyang-gu refused the Plaintiff’s application for change of the Plaintiff’s above building registry on the ground that the use of the instant building located in an environment improvement zone cannot be changed to a general restaurant because the Plaintiff was not a resident living in the original place. In accordance with Article 7 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, and Article 15

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On May 3, 2010, the Plaintiff moved into the Gyeonggi-gu World Trade Organization Co., Ltd., and the instant building was approved on June 3, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 15 subparag. 2 (d) of the Water-source Management Rules (hereinafter “instant administrative rules”) which the Defendant Yangyang-si Gun saw as the grounds for the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of equality, and the Plaintiff’s fundamental rights, such as the right to pursue happiness, are excessively restricted, and thus, is unconstitutional and invalid as an administrative rule contrary to the principle of excessive prohibition. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for the revocation of the instant disposition

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4 Judgment on the defenses on the merit

A. The Defendants’ defense 1) did not specify the disposition seeking revocation by the instant lawsuit, and even if the Plaintiff intended to seek revocation of the Plaintiff’s refusal of the Plaintiff’s request changing the purpose of use of the building indicated in the building ledger, such refusal does not constitute an administrative disposition that is the subject of an appeal litigation, and thus, the instant lawsuit is deemed unlawful due to the lack of eligibility. 2)