(b) Whether any legal interest exists to seek the cancellation of a disposition for the construction permit, if the construction work is completed on the basis of illegal construction permit.

C. Legal nature of the disposition of usage inspection of a building and whether there exists any legal interest to seek revocation of such disposition to the owner of an adjacent building

B. Even if the building permit is illegal because it has become a minimum provision of the Building Act, if the construction work is completed based on the building permit, the owner of an adjacent site would take the steps of correction in accordance with the said minimum site area restriction provision upon revocation of the said building permit disposition, and in seeking removal of the said building, it is not necessary to revoke the said building permit disposition, and thus, the owner of an adjacent site has no legal interest to seek revocation of the said building permit disposition.

C. A disposition of usage inspection of a building is merely a legal effect that enables a person who has obtained permission to use and profit from a building constructed by confirming whether the building is appropriate for the purpose of construction administration and issuing a certificate of usage inspection according to the matters of building permission. In a case where a building constructed infringes on the rights of the owner of a neighboring house, the disposition of usage inspection does not justify such infringement. In addition, even if the owner of a neighboring house suffered damage to his/her own house in the process of constructing the building, such damage can be recovered in monetary compensation. Infringement of living environment, such as infringement of sunshine rights, can be restored or protected by removal of all or part of the building. Even if the use inspection disposition of the building was revoked, the owner is merely unable to use the building lawfully and return to the pre-use inspection, and thus, the owner is determined by reasonable judgment of the administrative agency, so whether to issue a corrective order for the violated building, the timing and contents of the order, etc., and even if the owner of the adjacent house did not have any legal interest in the construction process, he/she cannot seek cancellation of usage inspection.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to the original state by excluding the state of illegality caused by the illegal disposition and protecting or remedying the rights and interests infringed or interfered with the disposition. Thus, even if the disposition is revoked, if it is impossible to reinstate it, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1131, Apr. 24, 1992; 86Nu375, Sept. 8, 1987).

Although the building permit of this case, which was received by Nonparty 1 for the building of this case, was unlawful because it violated the minimum site area restriction provision under the Building Act as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the owner of the site adjacent to the building site, was at the stage of correction in accordance with the above minimum site area restriction provision upon revocation of the building permit, and in seeking removal of the building, it is not necessary to revoke the above building permit. Thus, the Plaintiff does not have any legal interest to seek revocation of the above building permit (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1131 delivered on April 24, 192).

In addition, the pre-use inspection disposition of a building is merely a legal effect that enables a person who has obtained permission to use and profit from a building constructed by confirming whether the building constructed upon obtaining a building permit is appropriate for the purposes of the construction administration in accordance with the building permit, and granting a certificate of pre-use inspection. In a case where a building constructed infringes on the rights of the owner of an adjacent house, the disposition of pre-use inspection does not justify such infringement, and even if the owner of an adjacent house suffered damage to his own house in the process of constructing the building, such damage can be recovered in monetary compensation, and infringement of living environment, such as infringement of right to sunshine, can be restored or protected by removal of all or part of the building. Even if the pre-use inspection disposition of the building was revoked, the owner is merely unable to use the building lawfully and return to the pre-use inspection, and thus, the owner is determined by the reasonable judgment of the administrative agency (see Supreme Court Decision 9Nu1398, Jan. 19, 193; Supreme Court Decision 2009Nu1398, Sept. 19, 20, 2).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)