1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is accompanied by a design drawing, and the defendant applied for a building permit. Despite the fact that the sandd position panel and H beamline at the time of the building permit knew that it is necessary to construct a building and that the only passage available to access the construction site of this case was only farming, the non-approval disposition of this case violates the principle of trust protection.

B. In administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to the individual, second, the administrative agency should have no reason attributable to the individual as to the legitimacy and trust of the opinion list, third, the individual should have trusted the opinion list, and third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act in violation of the above opinion list, and fourth, the administrative agency should have conducted any act in violation of the above opinion list, thereby infringing the individual's interest in trust. If any administrative disposition satisfies these requirements, it is unlawful as an act contrary to the principle of the protection of trust, unless it is likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of third parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du10931 Decided January 17, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2004Du13592 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entry and pleading in the evidence No. 1 and the whole purport of the evidence No. 1 as to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2013, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2013: 4 Dong, total area: 1,958§³; 204Du13592 Decided February 24, 2006.