1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (i) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated.

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be amended to “F orchard 7,448 square meters,” and Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Procedure Act shall be amended to “relevant Acts and subordinate statutes” in the judgment of the court of first instance. “Related Acts and subordinate statutes” in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced to “related Acts and subordinate statutes” in the attached Form of this judgment.

2. The portion added by this court

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not have the right to seek revocation of the approval of housing construction project catch, and the defendant merely issued the disposition in this case within the meaning of the response to civil petition filed by the plaintiff

Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is the subject of administrative litigation, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. 1) In order for an administrative agency to reject an application for a citizen’s active action to constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, the applicant’s filing of the application must be an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action, and the refusal should cause any change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen should have the right to request the action in accordance with laws and regulations or cooking. Here, the term “the cause of a change in the applicant’s legal relationship” includes not only the cause of a direct change in the applicant’s substantive legal relationship, but also the cause of a significant obstacle to the applicant’s exercise of his/her rights as a substantive right holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1316, Oct. 11, 2007).