1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the reply of this case;

A. From May 16, 2005 to October 2013, the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent operating the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was aware of the fact that, at the request of Nonparty D, with respect to the lease contract with the side to use it as a convalescent hospital, the first floor underground and the third-class and six floors above the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) from among the above-mentioned and the first-class and the second-class and six floors from among the above-mentioned and the first-class and the first-class buildings owned by Nonparty D (hereinafter “instant building”) were prohibited from changing the use of the building in the Guidelines for the Implementation of the Mosan District Unit Planning and Utilization of the Urban Management Plan (hereinafter “Enforcement Guidelines”), which was publicly announced by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor pursuant to Articles 37 and 76 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on May 29, 2008.

B. Accordingly, on November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant whether the convalescent is included in the sanatoriums stipulated in the enforcement guidelines of the instant case, and whether the instant building can be changed into the convalescent. However, on November 13, 2013, the Defendant responded that the convalescent constitutes a sanatorium stipulated in the enforcement guidelines of the instant case, and that the instant building cannot be changed into the convalescent hospital.

C. On June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff again asked the Defendant of the foregoing matters, and the Defendant re-exploited to the same purport as on June 20, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant reply”) D.

On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant reply with the purport that “the Defendant invalidates the instant reply, and the convalescent hospital does not fall under the non-permission purpose.”