1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (the previous trade name was “KW AP Co., Ltd., but it was changed to its trade name on May 2, 2007) filed a construction permit with the Defendant to construct Class A and C (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) on the ground level 2 below the ground level 2 above the ground level 10th above the ground level 2 and the 12th above ground level 10th above the ground level.

Then, on October 10, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant to change the above building size into the second basement and the 11th floor above ground. On August 4, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained permission to change the above building size into the second basement and the fourth floor above ground.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building permit”). (b)

Around that time, the Plaintiff started construction of a new building in accordance with the instant building permit and constructed a structural frame for the second and fourth floors above ground, but suspended construction for several years.

C. On December 18, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the instant building permit (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on Article 11(7)3 of the Building Act on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff commenced construction after obtaining the instant building permit from the Plaintiff; (b) but (c) it is deemed impossible to complete construction, such as removal of the structural frame already constructed by the court’s execution.

【Ground for recognition】 Evidence Nos. 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful or not is planned to proceed with the remaining construction after consultation with B, such as obtaining a land trade declaration with respect to each of the instant lands from B on February 4, 2013. The Plaintiff merely became a removal of only the ground floor by the court’s alternative execution, and the underground floor was not removed. As such, the instant disposition that was otherwise determined is unlawful even if the construction is still feasible.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. Determination Dok, the facts acknowledged earlier, and evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, and .