1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Of “D and E” (hereinafter “instant cultural property”), which is a State-designated cultural property located in the Japanese belt, as indicated in attached Table 1, the Plaintiff’s ownership, “G” (hereinafter “G”) and “G” (hereinafter “G”), which are the Gangwon-do designated cultural property located in the said road and the said road, have a width of approximately 25 to 30 meters, as indicated in attached Table 1. In addition, “D and E” (hereinafter “instant cultural property”), as well as “G” and “G” are placed at approximately 44 meters away from the said road according to the said road.

Meanwhile, the instant land is located within one district for the preservation of the historical and cultural environment of the instant cultural heritage under Article 13 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 16057, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter the same).

B. On January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant application”) filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the current state of State-designated cultural heritage (hereinafter “instant application”) with the aim of newly building the building area of this case, 502.22 square meters, total floor area of 816.05 square meters, and 10.7 meters high, and constructing the parking lot and access road of the said building (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. The Defendant requested the Cultural Heritage Committee to deliberate on the instant application, and on February 27, 2019, the Cultural Heritage Committee rejected the instant application as a full-time member (nine present members) on the ground that “the natural landscape elements of the instant cultural heritage, the preservation of historical and cultural value, and the preservation of surrounding ecology, forests, and the environment may have a negative impact on the preservation of the natural landscape elements of the instant cultural heritage.”

Accordingly, as the result of the above deliberation on March 4, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant permission on the ground that the instant application does not meet the criteria for permission under Article 36 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act, and notified the Plaintiff via the Gangnam market on March 5, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence 3 through 5, 8 through 10, Eul evidence 2, 6, and 7 (including the number of each unit; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, and the whole pleadings.