Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building site of 1101-23, Dong-dong, Nam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road site”) and the Plaintiff, on June 8, 201, was a company that newly built and sold the instant apartment site on the ground of the 1295 land adjacent to the instant road site (hereinafter referred to as the “EG 1” on the following grounds) on the land adjacent to the instant road site after obtaining approval for the housing construction plan from the Defendant on June 8, 2011.

B. After the Plaintiff’s fence and the Plaintiff’s removal order had been completed and occupied the instant apartment, a fence was installed at a location adjacent to the boundary of the instant apartment site in order to prevent the instant apartment occupants from entering the instant apartment site through the instant road site.

(B) On September 25, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to remove the instant fence by October 10, 2013 on the ground that the act of installing the instant fence against the Plaintiff violates Article 91 of the Housing Act.

(B) On October 30, 2013, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to remove the instant fence by November 30, 2013, when the time limit for removal expires.

C. By November 30, 2013, the Defendant did not remove the instant fence by November 30, 2013, and the Defendant extended the time limit for removal to the Plaintiff on January 23, 2014 to February 14, 2014, and issued a disposition of an order to vicariously execute the instant fence in accordance with Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act where the Plaintiff did not remove the fence by such time limit.

(B) On the other hand, the Defendant’s disposition of the instant order is stipulated under the Building Act, and the site of the instant order is stipulated under Article 2 of the Building Act.