손해배상(기)
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.
A. The Plaintiff was ordered to suspend the first construction on the ground that part of the said site was installed with a fence by the owner of a neighboring building while constructing a newly built multi-household house on the ground B in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, by obtaining a construction permit from the Defendant. Notwithstanding the above order, the Plaintiff was ordered to take construction by force and received a corrective order along with the second order to suspend construction. The enforcement fine was imposed on the Plaintiff by failing to comply with
After that, the Plaintiff completed the above multi-household house, and rejected the Defendant’s application for approval for provisional use, and was found guilty of violating the Building Act on the grounds that the lessee moved into the above multi-household house, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval for construction permit with the Defendant on May 1, 1997. On the 22th of the same month, the Defendant added an additional note to the effect that “Until applying for approval for use of construction, the part of the fence of the neighboring building in the complex should be removed and the wall should be installed on the site boundary, and then the application for approval for use should be filed.”
B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant’s head of Daejeon High Court for the revocation of an additional pipe (97Guc3536) added to the permission for the alteration of the building, but the Plaintiff lost and appealed to the Supreme Court. On February 11, 2000, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below and remanded the case to the Daejeon High Court on the ground that the Defendant’s attachment of a new fence to install a new fence was unlawful on the ground that the Defendant’s attachment of a new fence in granting permission for the alteration
(98Nu7527) Accordingly, on the 19th day of the same month, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change of official residence with the purport of the above Supreme Court decision that the part of the additional note attached to the above building construction alteration permission should be deleted to install a new fence on the site boundary.
C. On the other hand, the plaintiff on September 16, 1998, against the defendant, the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court as above.