1. On February 24, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of accepting an application for construction permit against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit to construct a Class 1 neighborhood living facility (retailing stores) with a total floor area of 299.51 square meters on the ground of Namyang-si B (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On January 15, 2014, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the road ledger and related documents pertaining to C, an access road to the instant land, pursuant to Article 45 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant access road”).

C. On February 11, 2014, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to submit the road ledger and related documents for entering the instant road. D. The Defendant urged the Plaintiff to supplement the said road ledger and related documents.

On February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff failed to supplement and submit the above documents, and the Defendant issued a disposition for review on application for construction permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the pertinent documents were not submitted to the Plaintiff, which was consistent with Article 44 of the Building Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The access road of this case was actually used as the passage of residents from 1971 to 1971. As such, it constitutes a road under Article 2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 2852 of Dec. 31, 1975) pursuant to Article 2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 2852 of Dec. 31, 1975) pursuant to Article 2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 2852 of Dec. 31, 1975) even if the access road of this case does not constitute a road, the land of this case is adjacent to the access road of this case, and since the access road of this case was 4.5 meters wide and has been used as the passage of residents from 1971 to 1971.