1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion that the plaintiff addss to this court, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not hold a meeting of the council for processing complex civil petitions under Article 12 of the Building Act while rendering the instant disposition.

In addition, the defendant did not comply with the disposal period of 15 days under Article 57 (2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 54 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the related departments did not observe the consultation period and dealt with the civil petition delayed.

B. Determination 1) Article 12(1) of the Building Act provides that the head of a Si/Gun, etc., who is the person entitled to a building permit, intends to grant a building permit, shall examine whether the construction of a building in the relevant usage, scale, or form on the site intended to build a building, and shall hold a council for complex civil petitions en bloc to deal with matters related to the legal fiction of authorization and permission. While the Defendant appears not to hold a council for complex civil petitions in the process of rendering the instant disposition, it is apparent in light of the language and text of the above provision that the holding of the council for complex civil petitions en bloc is required when granting permission to an application for building permission, and the holding of the council for complex civil petitions is clearly required when filing an application for a building permit as deemed impossible, and it cannot be deemed a defect in the procedure of the instant disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is rejected.