조치명령처분취소
1. The order issued by the Defendant to install fire-fighting systems to the Plaintiff on May 8, 2017 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The same-sex comprehensive construction company (hereinafter “the same-sex comprehensive construction”) constructed and operated a rental business with 450 households located in Maldong-dong 950-4, Maldong-gun, Maldong-dong (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and sold the instant apartment to the Plaintiff and succeeded to the status of the rental business entity on July 30, 2015.
B. The Plaintiff, after purchasing the apartment house of this case, has run a housing rental business, and thereafter, partially the apartment house of this case is converted for sale in lots.
C. Meanwhile, according to Article 8 of the former Fire Services Act (amended by Act No. 6893, May 29, 2003; hereinafter “former Fire Services Act”), which was enforced on March 26, 2001 when the building permit for the apartment of this case was granted, the same-sex comprehensive construction was stipulated to obtain consent from the chief of the competent fire station at the time of the building permit. The same-sex comprehensive construction submitted a fire-fighting system installation plan including the plan for the installation of a refuge (air safety intermediary) and obtained consent from the head of the competent fire station, which was the head of the competent fire station of the apartment of this case.
On September 29, 2003, the chief of Msan fire station verified the installation details of the fire-fighting systems in accordance with Article 8 of the former Fire Services Act with respect to the apartment of this case, and issued the completion certificate of the fire-fighting systems, and accordingly, approved the use of the apartment of this case on November 14, 2003.
E. However, around April 19, 2017, the Defendant conducted a fire-fighting system inspection on the instant apartment and issued an order to the Plaintiff to install 128 households among the instant apartment pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by the former Fire-Fighting Act; hereinafter “Fire-Fighting System Act”) on May 8, 2017, on the ground that the escape equipment was not installed after having performed a fire-fighting system inspection on the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
F. The Plaintiff’s revocation of the instant disposition.