가설건축물 존치기간 연장신고 반려처분 취소 등
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The retention period of a temporary building by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on September 30, 2013.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiffs' assertion
A. The Plaintiffs, unlike the case of reporting on the construction of a temporary building, asserts that the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that there is no ground to interpret that the consent to the use of the site is necessary even at the time of the extension of the retention period because the consent to the use of the site is not required. ② Construction and retention of each of the instant temporary buildings on the ground of the instant land constitutes the act of management of jointly owned properties. As such, the Plaintiffs were entitled to consent with the majority of co-ownership shares of the instant land. ③ The Plaintiffs obtained consent to the use of the site from Samsung C&T Co., Ltd., a legitimate lien holder of the instant land, or obtained the possession of the temporary building built by Samsung C&T Co., Ltd., and thus,
B. Although the illegality of each of the dispositions of this case following each of the removal orders of this case is presumed to be lawful, each of the dispositions of this case and the disposition of imposition of enforcement fine of each of the removal orders of this case on the grounds that there is no consent from the majority right holders of this case, each of the removal orders of this case on the grounds that the defect is so serious that it is null and void, and even if it is not null and void as a matter of course, it is improper that the defect is succeeded to the disposition of this case and the disposition of imposition of enforcement fine of this case, or granting its binding power goes beyond the plaintiffs' limit of admission. Furthermore, even if each of the orders of this case is valid, each of the dispositions of this case and the disposition of imposition of enforcement fine of this case