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 September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit to newly construct a building, the main purpose of which is KRW 1, 2-type neighborhood living facilities, the building area of which is 283.13 square meters, and the total floor area of which is 801.38 square meters (hereinafter “instant building permit”) from the Defendant, and filed a report on the commencement of construction on September 12, 2012 with the Defendant on September 12, 2012.

B. On March 27, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the construction permit and the hearing to the effect that the construction permit is revoked pursuant to Article 11(7) of the Building Act if the Plaintiff did not commence construction work by April 30, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not commence construction work after obtaining the instant construction permit.

On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted an opinion that the construction was not commenced due to landscaping trees adjacent to the instant land located in the same 1085-555 (hereinafter “Adjoining land”) and the entry into construction equipment and the commencement of construction works, even though there was an obstacle to the entry into construction equipment and the commencement of construction works, and the Defendant extended the construction commencement period until October 31, 2014.

C. On October 20, 2014, the Defendant issued a prior notice of revocation of construction permission and a hearing to the effect that the construction permission is revoked pursuant to Article 11(7) of the Building Act if the Plaintiff did not commence construction works until November 25, 2014. On October 21, 2014, the Defendant presented an opinion that the Plaintiff is unable to commence construction works due to the opposition by the residents of Alleys and the said trees. However, on October 28, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the postponement is impossible for the same reason.

On November 26, 2014, the Defendant extended the commencement period of construction by December 11, 2014 at the Plaintiff’s request.

On December 15, 2014, the Defendant only installed empty containers on the instant land, but does not proceed with the process that can be recognized as the commencement of construction on the spot, and on-site verification on December 17, 2014.