1. On June 18, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of rejecting an application for building permit filed against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

On February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased 20,826 square meters of D forest in Yangju-si (hereinafter “instant forest”) from Yangju-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 5, 2017.

On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to develop a natural burial ground with a religious organization, etc., but changed the area from 20,826 square meters to 6,878 square meters on October 12, 2017.

On October 30, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the implementation of the procedures for filing a report on temporary use of mountainous districts under the Mountainous Districts Management Act and the implementation of permission to create a natural burial ground for religious organizations with the content of obtaining a building report under Article 14 of the Building Act.

(hereinafter “Notification of the Implementation Matters”). On November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a building report with respect to graveyard-related facilities (water burial management offices) according to the notification of the implementation of the instant case.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant building report.” On December 15, 2017, the Defendant consulted with the Plaintiff regarding the instant building report through a resident briefing session, etc. and notified the Plaintiff to supplement the written consent of the residents. On December 27, 2017 and February 8, 2018, the supplementary documents submitted by the Plaintiff were written consent of some residents, and thus, the supplementary documents submitted by the Plaintiff were notified that they should submit the supplementary documents, such as the written notification of supplement on December 15, 2017, respectively.

On March 5, 2018, the Defendant returned the instant building report on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the foregoing supplemental notification.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on the above return disposition, and the above commission revoked the return disposition made on May 14, 2018.

Accordingly, on June 18, 2018, the Defendant returned the instant building report again on the ground that “this case’s building report does not constitute graveyard-related facilities under subparagraph 26(c) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (a building appurtenant to graveyard and natural burial ground).”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and Gap No. 1.