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 issues of this case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. On December 6, 2007, the key issue of the instant case was that the Plaintiff did not commence construction works within two years after obtaining approval for the housing construction project plan on December 6, 2007, and obtained approval for the extension of construction period four times, but did not commence construction works by the final extension period (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On August 27, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the approval for the housing construction project plan to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

According to Article 16(1), (9), and (11) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11871, Jun. 4, 2013) and Article 18 subparag. 2 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, a project undertaker who has obtained approval of a project plan from the person who has the right to approve a housing construction project exceeding a certain scale shall commence construction works within two years from the date of approval, and where a project undertaker fails to commence construction works, the person who has obtained the approval of a project plan may cancel the approval of the project plan: Provided, That where the commencement of construction is delayed due to a dispute over ownership (limited to where litigation procedures are in progress) over the relevant project site (Article 18 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree) or "where the commencement of construction works is delayed due to force majeure that is not attributable to a natural disaster or a project undertaker (Article 18 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree)", the period of commencement of construction works may be extended

The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing discretion, even though there exist grounds for extending the construction commencement period under Article 18 subparags. 2 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act at the time of the instant disposition, it is unlawful to refuse the Plaintiff’s application for extending the construction commencement period and to make the instant disposition.

B. (1) With respect to the first issue, the court of first instance shall, even if there are grounds provided for in subparagraphs 2 and 4 of Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.