손해배상 청구
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims that have been changed in exchange in the trial are dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.
The facts below are without dispute between the parties, or acknowledged based on Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 (including serial numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the testimony and video of the first instance court E and F, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the party's examination of the plaintiff A, respectively.
[1] The owner of D et al. and two parcels of land at the time of Jinjin-si obtained a building permit to newly construct 11 households of reinforced concrete roof multi-family houses on the same site as stated in the items prior to the approval of use listed below, and completed the multi-family house in accordance with the above building permit, and obtained approval for use on March 24, 2010.
After approval for use before approval for use, 145.44 5 145.44 6 4 145.44 6 145.4 6 144 145.4 6 144 105.95 2145.4 2146.32 18 1436.32 18 I extended the 4th floor of the above house into the same area as the 2nd and 3th floor (hereinafter referred to as "illegal extension") without the permission of the competent authority after approval for use was granted, and 11 households have been increased to 18 households, as described in the "after approval for use" in the above table (hereinafter referred to as "after approval for use").
(hereinafter referred to as “instant house”). The Defendant purchased the instant house from I on September 2, 2013 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.
At that time, the defendant was aware of the aforementioned illegal expansion and illegal remodeling of the housing of this case.
[2] The broker E operating the G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office requested the Defendant’s husband F to sell the instant house. The F notified E of the unlawful reconstruction of the instant house, and explained that because the instant house is a building in violation of the building ledger, it should be sold at a low level compared to other multi-family houses.
On March 15, 2015, while the plaintiffs have colored a house for rent-making purposes.