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 July 31, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Gyeonggi-do Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Seoul-do Tourism Corporation”) to purchase KRW 375-5,373 square meters, 375-8, 4,715 square meters, 375-9, 375-8, 6,930 square meters, and 375-8, 124.74 square meters, 1,350 square meters, and 1,350 square meters on the above land (hereinafter referred to as the “sales-si sales contract”).

B. Thereafter, on the instant land on December 11, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit of the second floor reinforced concrete structure sales facility (hereinafter “instant building”) on the second floor below the building area of 3,277.3 square meters, 31,966.7 square meters, 19.8456 square meters, and 38.9813 percent of the volume of the building on the instant land. On April 6, 2009, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the non-permission of the instant building permit application on the ground that “a group civil petition is filed on the ground that the sale of permanent shops is reduced due to overlapping transaction items, and the traffic congestion of the members of the Bomun Tourist Tourist Complex is anticipated.”

C. On June 5, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, and received an adjudication from the Standingbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Defendant issued a building permit for the instant building (hereinafter “instant building permit”) to the Plaintiff on June 23, 2009.

On June 22, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the commencement date as of June 22, 2011 on the ground that the consultation with the contractor for the adjustment of construction costs is delayed, and obtained approval from the Defendant. The Plaintiff was issued a certificate of completion of completion of construction on June 30, 201 on the scheduled commencement date of construction works as of June 22, 201.

E. On December 22, 2011, the Defendant intended to revoke the construction permit pursuant to Article 11(7) of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not actually commence the new construction work even though the Plaintiff reported the commencement of the construction work.