1. The disposition of non-permission to change the use of a building rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 25, 2016 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the purpose of the instant building’s use from a wedding hall to a funeral hall on July 29, 2016, to the owner of the 2nd floor underground and the 5nd floor building (hereinafter “instant building”).

(hereinafter “instant application for permission to change the purpose of use”). (b)

On August 25, 2016, the Defendant rejected the instant application on the ground that “The location of a building subject to change of the purpose of use is the entrance of a park, so if changed to a funeral hall, it cannot be permitted to take into account the public interest, such as damage to the image of the park, inconvenience to the public use of the park, and inconsistency with the citizens’ sentiments.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

The defendant asserts that the alteration of the use of this case does not violate any restrictions stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Building Act, but did not grant permission due to the necessity of significant public interest.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The alteration of purpose of use pursuant to Article 19 of the Building Act constitutes a binding act that requires permission if it satisfies the requirements prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, the instant disposition that the Defendant rejected the instant application for permission for alteration of purpose of use due to reasons not prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes is unlawful. 2) Even if the purpose of use of the instant building is changed to a funeral hall from a wedding place, it cannot be deemed that the image of the instant park is damaged or that the park user inconveniences the citizens. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing

3 Other funeral parlorss in the city and in the vicinity of the city. The principle of equality is to prevent the use of the building of this case as a funeral hall.