1. On August 29, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition not to grant construction permission to the Plaintiff each revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit (hereinafter referred to as “application of the instant building permit”) to newly construct each building area of 546.84m2, total floor area of 1093.68m2 on each of the instant lands (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) with the Defendant, for the purpose of Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores), Class II neighborhood living facilities (offices, fishery big stations), and for the purpose of two buildings on each of the ground size of 2 floors on each of the instant lands (hereinafter referred to as “application of the instant building permit”). Other one applies for a construction permit (hereinafter referred to as “application of the instant building permit”).

B. On August 29, 2013, the Defendant rendered a provisional disposition on the ground that the access road to each of the instant lands is narrow, and that there is no infrastructure such as the treatment of sewage and flood, thereby undermining the neighboring residential environment. In the event that a wholesale business-oriented place is established on each of the instant lands, the damage to the residential environment and multiple civil petitions are anticipated due to traffic congestion, flood control, malodor, noise, etc., the Defendant issued a provisional disposition on the ground that it is necessary to secure the infrastructure before the implementation plan for an urban planning facility project in consideration of the urban landscape and the public interest purpose, such as traffic problems, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 5, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of construction permission is a binding act to which the construction right holder should naturally, unless there are grounds for restriction stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Building Act. The Plaintiff is required to grant permission under the Building Act

In addition, the defendant is not only equipped with all cases but also related to the agenda of authorization and permission under each subparagraph of Article 11(5) of the Building Act.