1. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant’s application for permission for the conversion of a mountainous district shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 30, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a building report (hereinafter “the first building report”) with the Defendant in order to newly construct a detached house of 59.04 square meters (hereinafter “instant house”) on a scale of 395 square meters on a scale of 395 square meters, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). The period of permission for conversion of a mountainous district was October 31, 2007.

B. In 2008, the Plaintiff did not construct the instant housing until the expiration of the period of permission for conversion of a mountainous district. When the instant land was changed from a quasi-converting area to a quasi-converting area, the Plaintiff changed the use of the instant housing from a general housing to a farming household housing again filed a report on the instant housing again, and the Defendant accepted the said report. The details of the report filed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant regarding the construction of the instant housing are as follows.

The period for temporary conversion of the period of permission for the conversion of a mountainous district, as set forth in the report on the commencement of construction (change) shall be extended once until September 30, 201, September 30, 201, on September 30, 201, which is extended once until September 30, 201, on October 30, 2006.

On November 21, 2011, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s building report by the period of permission for conversion of a mountainous district until November 30, 2012, stating that “this case’s land does not constitute a preserved mountainous district under Article 9 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act as a preserved mountainous district under Article 4 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, and does not conflict with the Management of Mountainous Districts Act due to the renewed period of permission due to the expiration of the period of permission for building farming houses.”

The Plaintiff did not construct the instant housing until November 30, 2012, which is the expiration date of the period for permission for conversion. The Defendant issued a prior notice on October 18, 2012 that an extension consultation or a restoration plan should be submitted to the Plaintiff ten (10) days before the expiration of the period for permission for conversion of a mountainous district, and the Plaintiff issued a prior notice on July 17, 2013, even though the period for conversion of a mountainous district expired, the Plaintiff’s restoration plan to the Defendant.