1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the current state of Si-designated cultural heritage, etc. to construct neighborhood living facilities (unuse rooms) and detached houses (two stories on the land and 193.70 square meters in total floor area) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-do (hereinafter “instant application site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On November 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to reject the Plaintiffs’ application for this case on the ground that it does not comply with Article 12 of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Properties (hereinafter “instant disposition”) according to the result of deliberation by the Cultural Heritage Committee that “the designation of cultural heritage protection zone, etc. is necessary because large number of relics are scattered in the relevant business site” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 6 (including tentative number), Eul's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. If the plaintiffs' assertion belongs to a historic and cultural environment preservation area, the standard for the alteration of the current state of cultural heritage should be established pursuant to Article 13(4) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, but it is unclear whether the present state of cultural heritage exists or not, and even if the standard for the alteration of the present state is established, it is unclear whether the instant

In addition, while the application of this case has little value to protect because there is little possibility of existence of relics, the plaintiffs' property damage caused by the restriction on architectural acts is enormous, so the disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of proportionality and is in violation of the discretionary power.

In addition, it is against the principle of equity to refuse to file an application for permission, such as the alteration of the current state of Si-designated cultural heritage, because the permission for the alteration of the current state of Si-designated cultural heritage was granted with respect to the land near the application

(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;