1. On October 11, 2013, the Defendant revoked a disposition revoking a building permit issued against the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 21, 2006, on December 23, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired the status of the owner of the construction permit as to the construction permit that was granted for the construction of Class II neighborhood living facilities and storage facilities on the land of the land outside Class B and six parcels (hereinafter “the instant forest”). The details of the instant construction permit are as listed below.

The purpose of use of 3,069.11 2,495.43 reinforced concrete/general steel framed underground floor/ground 1-2 warehouses (second class neighborhood living facilities) of 3,069.11, 2,495.43

B. On October 31, 2006, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s report on the commencement of construction, and thereafter held a hearing on November 24, 2010 as a prior procedure to cancel the instant construction permit on the ground that the Plaintiff had not commenced construction or suspended construction for a long time even after obtaining the instant construction permit, and urged the Plaintiff to complete construction within the prompt time without cancelling the said construction permit on or before November 201.

After that, the Defendant, on April 27, 2012, deemed that the Plaintiff did not proceed with the construction, was holding a new hearing on April 27, 2012, and the Plaintiff’s opinion that “it is expected that the construction will begin between May and June as agreed as the Plaintiff would have become a site creation due to the establishment of access roads and the incorporation into a site following the establishment of a distribution logistics complex.”

C. On February 21, 2013, the Defendant, after holding a hearing again on the same ground, suspended revocation of the Plaintiff’s construction permit by September 30, 2013 at the Plaintiff’s request for postponement of revocation of construction permit and submitted evidential documents on the commencement of construction. However, on October 11 of the same year, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not commence construction, and revoked the instant construction permit.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant pursuant to Article 18 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act.