1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 26, 2013, B filed a building report for the construction of Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) with the head of Ansan-si, the Plaintiff-si, the head of Ansan-si, the Plaintiff-si, and the head of the Dong for the construction of a new building on the 1653 square meters of D forest land adjoining the 343 square meters of land in Ansan-si, the Plaintiff-gu, the Plaintiff-owned (the foregoing forest was converted into 1648 square meters of forest E, and was divided into three lots, including 659 square meters of forest land, on December 10, 2010; hereinafter “D forest”). On August 30, 2013, the head of Ansan-si, the head of the Gu received the said report

(hereinafter “instant building report”). (b)

On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the office of the members of Ansan-si, the building report was made by connecting the said road owned by the Plaintiff without the consent of the interested parties, and the repair thereof was unlawful. The head of the Ansan-si, the head of the Gu sent to the Plaintiff that the said road was already designated as a road by the relocating owner, and that the said building report and the acceptance thereof are lawful.

C. On June 27, 2014, B filed an application for permission to change a building report with respect to the location of a building and the connection roads of D forest to the head of Ansan-si, the ownership of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “G bank”), and filed an application for permission with the head of the Gu of Ansan-si on September 18, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant change”). D.

On September 24, 2014, October 14, 2014, and October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the member-gu Office of Ansan-si to the effect that the instant permission for change was unlawful, since G bank was not a road under the Building Act. The head of Ansan-si sent to the Plaintiff that the said permission for change was lawful, since the connection road for building permission should be determined by the actual status, not the land category.

E. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination under Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act on the ground that “The Plaintiff is not taking any particular corrective measure despite the illegality of the instant building report and permission for modification.”