1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose business purpose is outdoor advertising agency business.

B. On November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for an advertisement deliberation on installing the following advertising materials on the rooftop of the Daegu North-gu building, a general commercial area:

hereinafter referred to as "the first application for deliberation"

(i) The type, quantity, size, advertisement size of advertisements, etc. x 1.48m x 10.496m (electronic display) x 20.61m x 12.75m (frequency) x 13.76m x 12.75m (frequency) x 7.50m x 11.0m (frequency commercial advertisements and public interest publicity);

C. On December 5, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of deliberation by the Outdoor Advertising Deliberation Committee on the first application for deliberation. D.

On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for deliberation on the advertisement by changing the size of the advertisement among the details of the first application for deliberation to the Defendant as follows:

hereinafter referred to as "the second application for deliberation".

(i)standard 19.207m ¡¿ 11.5m (electronic display) ¡¿ 11m (frequency) ¡¿ 13.95m x 11m (frequency) x 11m (frequency) x 19.05m x 11m (frequency);

E. On January 9, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff the second request for deliberation without supplementation of the risk of large-scale accidents and concerns over light pollution as a result of the deliberation by the First Outdoor Advertising Deliberation Committee, which are matters rejected as a result of the deliberation by the said Committee.

F. On January 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for deliberation by the Outdoor Advertising Deliberation Committee by supplementing the deliberation books, etc. to the Defendant.

(g) On January 24, 2019, the Defendant sent a reply that the application for the second deliberation was not subject to reexamination on the following grounds: (a) there was no supplementation of the risk of large-scale accidents caused by the transmission of the advertisement of the video on an urban expressway, which was rejected as a result of the deliberation by the first Outdoor Advertising Deliberation Committee; and (b) there were no concerns about the occurrence of light

H. On February 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for deliberation on advertisements by changing the size of the advertisement to the Defendant as follows:

hereinafter referred to as "the case."