1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that there exists no dispute or dispute);

A. On May 8, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased 2,350 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) in Seoyang-gun, Seoyang-do on May 8, 200 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 25th of the same month.

B. On September 21, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to change the current state of State-designated cultural heritage alteration, etc. with respect to the instant real estate through I, ASEAN, to change the land category of the instant real estate into “site”, and withdrawn the application for permission on Oct. 13, 2009, such as the alteration of the current state

C. After that, the instant real estate was incorporated into a site for a D parking lot creation project, and the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff on August 5, 2015.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. After the Plaintiff asserted that he applied for permission to change the current state of State-designated cultural heritage as above to the Defendant, E, a staff member in charge of the Si/Gun office of the Defendant, stated that “The instant real estate has already been announced and confirmed as a parking lot site, and it is impossible to change the form and quality of the land as a site.” The said permission was withdrawn. Accordingly, the Plaintiff withdrawn the said application for permission on October 13, 2009.

However, the real estate of this case was publicly notified as the site for the D main owner development project, and the time was after the plaintiff filed the above application for permission for the real estate of this case, and E, the employee in charge of the defendant, must accept the above application for permission in accordance with the legal obligations, despite the fact that E, the employee in charge of the defendant, received the above application for permission in violation of the legal obligations

After that, during the course of consultation with the defendant, the real estate of this case is assessed as "responding" rather than "site" and the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the difference.

Therefore, the Defendant, as an employer of E, is entirely liable for damages equivalent to the difference in land category assessment suffered by the Plaintiff, from May 25, 2009 to August 5, 2015, which is the time of sale after consultation.