A. The Plaintiff has obtained permission from the Korea Rail Network Authority for the use of Mapo-gu Seoul and 14 lots (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Mapo-gu Seoul and 14 lots (hereinafter “instant land”), and from around 1999, operated the “Specialized Driving Schools for Motor Vehicles” in the instant land (hereinafter “Special Driving Schools”).

B. In order to operate the instant driving school, the Plaintiff filed a report on the construction of each of the instant temporary buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant temporary buildings”) with the Defendant around 7 Dong around 1999, around 2009, around 1 Dong around 2010, around 2010, around 2012. The Plaintiff reported the extension of the retention period of the instant temporary buildings from the time of the said report to the end of 2014, and received permission for extension of the retention period from the Defendant.

The instant land is an area designated and publicly notified as an area subject to restrictions on development activities from June 28, 2012 to prevent reckless development of the site for the temporary building of this case. Since the instant land was included in the DNA starting section of the Defendant in 2016, it is inevitable to report the extension of the retention period of the instant temporary building for the smooth promotion of the project.

C. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report to the Defendant on the extension of the retention period of the instant temporary building (hereinafter “instant report”). However, on February 16, 2016, the Defendant notified the Defendant of nonpermission on the grounds of Article 20(2)1 of the Building Act, Article 64(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Article 61 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”). D.

After that, on March 31, 2016, the defendant continued to use the temporary building of this case to the plaintiff on the ground that it had been used on the ground that the retention period of the temporary building of this case expired, the defendant would take measures to voluntarily remove the temporary building by April 30, 2016. If the plaintiff fails to comply with the request for correction without justifiable grounds, the property and the business due to administrative measures (administrative vicarious execution, accusation, etc.).