1. On February 19, 2019, the Defendant’s order for temporary suspension of construction works against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained a permit from the Defendant to build a plant-related facility (hereinafter “instant building permit”) on the ground of the instant land outside B and three parcels (hereinafter “instant project site”) (hereinafter “instant project site”) and commenced construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

The condition of permission (hereinafter “instant condition of permission”) was attached to the instant building permit, and the part relating to the instant case is as follows.

6. Where it is impracticable to complete the project within the project period, he/she shall postpone the designation of the scheduled period by 30 days prior to the scheduled date of completion.

12. The date and time suspension of the project and the settlement of the civil petition shall be carried out in the event of the occurrence of the civil petition in accordance with the implementation of the project, and the petitioner shall be responsible and treated with respect to all civil petitions.

B. On February 19, 2019, the Defendant notified the instant order to suspend the construction of the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the instant permission in the course of performing the project in relation to the instant building permit.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Jeonnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 27, 2019.

On the other hand, on February 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of the project period, and the Defendant rendered a disposition to change the project period from July 5, 2017 to December 31, 2018 from July 31, 2017 to December 31, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not perform the duty of prior notification under Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act while rendering the instant disposition. As such, there is procedural defect in the instant disposition.