1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1.

The Plaintiff is the owner of H Dae-si, Namyang-si, H-si, H 553 square meters (hereinafter “instant H site”) and two-story housing (hereinafter “instant housing”). The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant H site, adjacent to the south of the instant H site, and the re-examination Plaintiff is the owner of the instant 1,067 square meters prior to I,067 square meters (hereinafter “the instant I”) located in order to the lower direction of North Korean River from the notification belt of the opposite direction to the North Korean River. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant 1,06 square meters prior to J, 90 square meters prior to J, and 589 square meters prior to K (hereinafter “the instant K B”).

B. A neighboring each of the above land is located in the form of surrounding each of the above land by P road 419 square meters and N 746 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”).

C. On December 13, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for development activities (hereinafter “development activities in this case”) with respect to the installation of retaining walls of 0.5m or 8m height on the boundary line of the instant land before the instant I and the instant land to the Defendant as farmland pursuant to Article 56(1)1 and 2 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 201); and on January 31, 2011, the Defendant: (a) set aside the instant I before the instant case; (b) installed a retaining wall of 7.7m height on the boundary line of the instant H site before the instant case; and (c) filled the instant K at FH 49m height; and (d) filed an application for permission for development activities with respect to the installation of retaining walls of 0.5m or 8m height on the instant road (hereinafter “instant development activities”).

Accordingly, on November 16, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant development permit (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On July 3, 2012, the said court (hereinafter “instant first instance court”) filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant development permit (hereinafter “instant development permit”).