According to the purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff is obvious that the plaintiff is seeking revocation of the main order. Thus, it cannot be adopted that the original judgment has revoked the administrative disposition that the plaintiff did not claim.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1

On the ground of 59 square meters in Daegu-si, the Plaintiff-owned ( Address 1 omitted), Daegu-si, the 59 square meters in a wooden sap factory, 40 square meters and apap 25 square meters in a house and 12-5 square meters in a house ( Address 3 omitted), 12-5 square meters in a house and 12-5 square meters in a house, and 20 square meters in a warehouse building (No. 3 square meters in a warehouse), the Plaintiff obtained a reconstruction permit from the Defendant in order to rebuild the above house among the existing buildings of 12-5 square meters in a house and about 20 square meters in a warehouse building. However, the Defendant issued an order to revoke the permission and remove the building, and then ordered the removal of the building. The present building is now constructed, and it can be concluded that there is no harmful noise at the time of construction of the building under the Act on the Prevention of Noise and Vibration, which does not affect the market price of the building.

However, according to the order of removal of the building by the defendant, the plaintiff is obligated to remove the building and there is no material to acknowledge that the order is revoked. If part of the building in this case goes against the plan of the administrative agency, uses it as an steel factory by building one building which is 138 square meters or more, and if the factory building is located in a zone where the house is enjoyable, it shall be in violation of the plan road regardless of the time of the implementation of the plan road and the time of the operation of the plan road and the time of the operation of the factory to prevent harmful phenomena, such as noise and vibration, etc., due to the operation of the factory, and if it is located in the zone where the building is not located in the house zone, it shall be interpreted that the failure to perform the duty of removal of the building in this case is extremely detrimental to the public interest, but it is reasonable to interpret that the removal requirement of the building in this case is extremely detrimental to the public interest, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements of the above disposition, and the remaining appeal is without merit.

Therefore, according to Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.