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 February 28, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased 1,146 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on March 18, 2005.

B. On May 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities for the creation of sites for Class 1 and Class 2 neighborhood living facilities (retail stores and offices) (hereinafter “instant application”) on the ground that is part of the said land (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On June 20, 2018, on the instant application, on the ground that it was reasonable to make a reservation prior to the establishment of a detailed plan for permission pursuant to the instant application on the grounds that “after the establishment of a comprehensive plan reflecting all the relevant area, it is reasonable to be processed according to the result.” On June 20, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the said consultation on June 29, 2018.

(A) No. 7, d.

On July 6, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition as to the instant application (No. 2; hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff rendered a non-permission disposition as to the instant application on the ground that “before completion of the establishment of a comprehensive detailed plan for the relevant area (in accordance with the result of the advisory opinion of the In-si Urban Planning Committee), pursuant to Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul's evidence No. 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the grounds for disposition and the relevant laws and regulations.

The plaintiff asserts that the above disposition is unlawful as follows.

1) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not provide an opportunity to present opinions under Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2) The substantive defect is the basis for the disposition.