1. On January 28, 2015, the Defendant’s refusal to revoke the construction permit granted to the Plaintiff on January 28, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) filed a construction permit with the Defendant on August 13, 2007 (hereinafter “instant building permit”) stating that the purpose of use of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) is to be changed to accommodation facilities (retail condominiums”) at the facility for the elderly and children, and that the building is extended, and obtained from the Defendant on August 13, 2007.

B. On August 12, 2008, the non-party company filed an application for postponement of the commencement with the Defendant and received a notice of approval as of August 13, 2009, and submitted the commencement report to the Defendant on July 31, 2009 and received the commencement report from the Defendant on October 20, 209.

C. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by winning a successful bid in the public sale procedure on the instant building and site.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the revocation of the instant building permit. On January 28, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant building permit (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by notifying the Defendant that it is difficult to revoke the instant building permit due to the following reasons: (a) on October 20, 2016, the period for granting the instant building permit was not yet due to the expiration of the period for granting the approval of tourism business; (b) the intent of strong projects concerning the resumption of construction; (c) dispute between the relevant parties; and (d) the uncertainty of the ownership of rights to the permission for extension and alteration of use; and (d) the period for granting the

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, Eul’s evidence No. 9 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the party's assertion (1) The plaintiff left the site without construction of the building of this case for several years by the non-party company, but the above building and the site were sold by public auction, and the plaintiff acquired ownership. The plaintiff did not intend to transfer the building of this case and the site of this case to the non-party company.