1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 13, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit (hereinafter “instant building permit”) for the construction of multi-family housing with a total floor area of 273.79 square meters, building area of 75.2 square meters, and on the ground of 125.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the head of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the head of Nam-dong” only) on the ground of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. After obtaining the instant building permit, the Plaintiff demolished the existing total floor area of 150.77 square meters, underground 1st and ground 2nds on the instant land. From May 2008, the Plaintiff borrowed approximately KRW 170 million from financial institutions to construct the instant building from May 2008.

C. On September 10, 2008, the head of South Dong/Dong revoked the instant building permit for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Grounds for revocation of building permission

1. The Plaintiff design a building in violation of the Building Height Restriction Regulations (Article 61 of the Building Act) for securing sunlight, etc.

2. In the area where the instant building is to be newly constructed, the Plaintiff, the owner of the building, and the certified architect delegated the construction design, who were the owner of the building, have falsely prepared design documents different from the site and designed them to be in violation of the Building Act and subordinate statutes. Based on this, the construction permission was issued and thereby harmed the public interest in

3. If construction activities increase the number of households, the public interest purpose of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project is damaged, the cost burden of existing residents is increased, and even if construction is conducted, the newly constructed building should be removed, so waste of resources, such as construction cost, is likely to occur.

The plaintiff is merely erroneous in the average horizontal measurement of the site indicated in the design drawing for the violation of the Building Act, which is the ground for the disposition of this case.