1. The Defendant’s disposition of rejecting an application for building permit filed with the Plaintiff on February 20, 2018 is revoked.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 2016, the Plaintiff (i) filed an application for the first building permit and (ii) withdrawn from the application, and (iii) on April 21, 2016, the Plaintiff is only deemed as having D interest in racing.

(E) The instant application is collectively referred to as “the instant land” in total of E-Y 844.8 square meters, F 1,039.5 square meters, G 1,937 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”).

(2) On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the Defendant to build livestock penss (vegetable-related facilities: hereinafter the same shall apply) at the place of the instant application, but that year:

7.1. Withdrawal.

B. On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit to build a stable of 1,459 square meters in the instant application site. (2) On April 14, 2017, the Defendant requested the Urban Planning Committee for the Plaintiff to deliberate on the Plaintiff’s application for a building permit on April 14, 2017.

3) On April 25, 2017, on the grounds that “the instant application is likely to cause a civil petition due to the establishment of an annual stable near the Driri village site, so that it is likely to cause a civil petition to an agricultural and forest area. Therefore, on April 28, 2017, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the Plaintiff on April 28, 2017, the content that “a written request for consultation with the residents around the instant application area is to be shipped off” with the result of consultation with the residents around the instant application area.

However, as the Plaintiff did not submit a written result of consultation with the residents, the Defendant again demanded the Plaintiff on June 2, 2017 to supplement to the effect that “the written result of consultation with the residents around the instant application site is the shipment, by June 30, 2017.”

5) Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff did not submit a written report on the result of consultation with residents, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the application for building permit as follows on July 14, 2017 (hereinafter “previous disposition”).

(a) Purpose for the return of a construction permit - Local residents as a result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee that a civil petition is likely to occur due to the construction of a chain shed in an agricultural and forest area surrounding the Dri village area.