1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to change the purpose of use and to make a large-scale repair of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”) with the purpose of using the instant building on three lots (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) located on the ground, including Geumjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Geumdong-gu, 766-1 and 766-3 lots of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) 727.51 square meters, each of the 727.51 square meters of an underground floor parking lot, the 1st floor neighborhood living facilities, the 2nd floor, and the 3nd floor wedding hall, respectively, 554.71 square meters, the 5th floor neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

With respect to the application of this case which you submitted, the return of the term and the request for supplementation [the comprehensive opinion, traffic congestion-related measures, regional/district-related matters, structural stability of buildings, etc. after the omission of required documents for consultation, the reexamination of the permission and inspection report] are not supplemented and re-receiving the application of this case without supplementation of documents and return the application for construction permit pursuant to Article 15 (Return of Civil Petition Documents, etc.) of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act.

Alternatives: It is known that it is possible to review the surrounding conditions at the time of filing an application along with the supplementary requirements [the comprehensive opinion, traffic-related measures, matters related to the region/district (esthetic zone), structural stability of buildings, etc. after omitting required documents for consultation, obtaining permission, and reviewing the inspection report], and to deal with them when consultation with the relevant departments is appropriate.

B. On January 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the Plaintiff’s instant application to the Plaintiff for the following reasons:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on May 15, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 10, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 6 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 is only one day without requesting a consultation with the relevant department on the instant disposition.