1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-acceptance of the building report rendered to the Plaintiff on March 4, 2019 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a building report (hereinafter “instant report”) with the Defendant on December 12, 2018, for the purpose of constructing Class II neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) with a total floor area of 198 square meters in the area of 1,140 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On March 4, 2019, the Defendant rejected the instant report for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The grounds for non-acceptance of the instant report are contrary to the provisions of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act. - The instant application is inappropriate as sites for Class II neighborhood living facilities, since it is impossible to install buildings and permanent facilities pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act and Article 18 (3) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, due to land owned by an individual, or agricultural infrastructure incorporated into an open storage site installed in 1945.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said appeal on May 27, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 12, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The acceptance of the instant report constitutes “speed act” and the Defendant should accept the instant report so long as the instant report satisfies the requirements under the Building Act. 2) The permission to use agricultural infrastructure pursuant to the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act for the second assertion is not included in the constructive authorization and permission at the time of accepting the building report pursuant to Articles 14(2) and 11(5) of the Building Act, and thus, the acceptance of the instant report cannot be denied on this ground.

In addition, the defendant considered Article 18 (3) 3 of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act that "no person shall illegally occupy or use agricultural production infrastructure" as the basis for the disposition of this case.