1. On September 22, 2016, the Defendant revoked a disposition revoking a building permit issued against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

On April 209, the Plaintiff filed a report on the change of the use of an existing building [building: Flag group, wood board, use of wood board, general restaurant (general restaurant), area: 68.08 square meters], report on the change of use [building: 23.36 square meters], (building: 23.36 square meters) [building: 23.36 square meters], and 23.36 square meters] (building: wood panel, use of Class II neighborhood living facilities (general restaurant, area: 68.0 square meters) (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

On April 6, 2009, the defendant accepted the above building (extension) report and issued the certificate of completion of report.

On September 22, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the measures taken that the instant land was a preserved mountainous district, the purpose of which is impossible to use the general restaurant (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act, to revoke the building report on April 6, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and to “the partial cancellation of the building register of 68.08 square meters, among Class 2 neighborhood living facilities of the first floor, 91.4 square meters.”

The plaintiff appealed to the disposition of this case and filed an administrative appeal, and the Gangwon-do Administrative Appeals Commission ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

【Ground for recognition” without any dispute, Gap 2, 6 evidence, Eul 2, Eul 3-1, 2-2, and all pleadings are as shown in the attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

The Plaintiff’s father D purchased an existing building in around 1970 and extended 68.08 square meters in the existing building around 2001, following the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition.

The land of this case was designated as a preserved mountainous district on December 26, 2008, and the extension of the building of this case under the former Building Act, which was implemented at the time of actual extension of the building of this case, is not subject to permission or reporting.

Therefore, the building report of April 6, 2009 on the extension of the building of this case is accepted.