1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 201, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit from the Defendant to newly construct educational and research facilities with three stories underground and four stories above ground on the ground of 2,15 square meters in Seongdong-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant construction permit”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for the extension of construction commencement with the Defendant on April 25, 2012, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not commence construction works under the instant construction permit, and that the construction was not commenced within one year from the construction permit date on April 3, 2012, and the Defendant extended the construction commencement period until April 20, 2013.

C. On April 3, 2013, the Plaintiff continued not to commence construction works, and the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to report the commencement of construction works and notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the construction permit, stating that “if the commencement report is not filed by April 20, 2013, which is the starting period, the construction permit may be revoked.”

The Plaintiff reported the commencement of construction on June 5, 2013 without reporting the commencement of construction after the lapse of April 20, 2013, and continued to commence construction even after reporting the commencement of construction.

E. On September 15, 2015, the Defendant revoked the instant building permit pursuant to Article 11(7)1 of the Building Act on the ground that “the construction was not commenced within the starting period.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 4, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, C, D, and Jhoho Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C, etc.”)

A. The construction was not commenced because it was impossible to remove the existing building that had existed on the site subject to the construction permit of this case due to the wind of removing the building. Subsequent to this, C et al. filed a lawsuit for a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff and received some favorable judgment, and then received the decision of compulsory sale transfer of the above provisional seizure to the original seizure upon the above judgment, and the above lawsuit