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 March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a building report with the Defendant pursuant to Article 14 of the Building Act in order to newly construct one single unit of detached house with a building area of 51.8m2 on the ground of 595m2 (hereinafter “instant report site”) in racing-si (hereinafter “instant report site”).

(hereinafter “instant report”). B.

On May 27, 2016 and July 7, 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the existing bridge crossing D adjacent to the instant report site to obtain permission for occupancy and use of rivers from the Gyeongbuk-do, which is the authority to grant permission for occupancy and use of rivers prior to the building report, on the ground that the existing bridge crossing D is necessary to be re-built, and the new bridge is required to secure access roads to the instant building site.

C. On October 19, 2016, the Defendant returned the instant report to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for supplementation, even though it was demanded to do so.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s No. 4, Eul’s evidence No. 2 (including virtual numbers, hereinafter the same), and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since Article 44 of the Building Act does not apply to the report of this case pursuant to Article 3(2) of the same Act, the reason for securing a bridge is required to secure a bridge because it is possible to construct a house even if it does not adjoin the road under the Building Act.

It is unlawful to require the Plaintiff to obtain permission to occupy and use a new bridge in order to build a new bridge, and to take the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff did not obtain such permission.

(b) Required to obtain access to domestic affairs;

Then, a bridge is required.

Even if it is possible to use the existing bridge due to the entry into the reported site of this case, it is required to obtain permission to occupy and use a new bridge for the construction of the new bridge from the Plaintiff, and the disposition of this case was conducted on the grounds that it was not obtained.