1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit to construct a building for business facilities (hereinafter “instant application”) with the building area of 523.98 square meters, total floor area of 1,903.66 square meters, underground second floor, and second floor size of business facilities (hereinafter “instant application”).

Non-permission of construction permission following non-permission of development permission - In 207 to four times in total in 201, the applicant filed an application for permission for development permission, and made non-permission of development permission (three times) on the grounds of high gradient from consultation with the Urban Planning Committee (three times), high gradient from development, urban landscape damage caused by development, and risk of traffic safety accidents. On August 8, 2011, the Gu won the case of non-permission of August 8, 201 as a result of the administrative litigation of the non-permission of construction permission. - As a result of the review of the application documents, the average slope level exceeds the legal standard, the occurrence of disasters, such as collapse, etc. caused by excessive cutting of, and the risk of damaging the surrounding natural scenery and landscape, etc. - It is not significantly different from the previous non-permission at the time of non-permission of development permission (land form and quality alteration

B. On October 27, 2017, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a non-permission disposition regarding the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and granted “a non-permission notice of construction permission following the non-permission of development permission” including the following matters:

C. On January 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the disposition of this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the bounds of discretion, in light of the following circumstances.

1. This.