손해배상(기)
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff (the plaintiff) added in the lawsuit for retrial of this case is the preliminary one.
1. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.
A. The Plaintiff received the first order of construction suspension on the ground that part of the said site was installed with a fence by the owner of neighboring buildings while performing construction work of multi-household housing on the ground that the Defendant (Jinjin-gun prior to his / her success in the city) obtained a construction permit from the head of the Gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. Notwithstanding the above order, the Plaintiff was subject to a corrective order as well as the second order of construction suspension, and was imposed a non-performance penalty by failing to comply with the above corrective order
After that, the plaintiff completed the above multi-household house, filed an application for approval for provisional use with the head of the defendant, but rejected it, and was found guilty of violating the Building Act on the grounds that the tenant moved in the above multi-household house, the plaintiff filed an application for change of the building permit with the head of the defendant around May 1, 197.
Around May 22, 1997, the Defendant’s head of the Gun granted permission by adding additional clauses to the effect that “before an application for approval of use of a building, the part of the fence of the neighboring building be removed within the complex until the application is filed, and the wall should be installed on the site boundary, and then the application for approval of use shall be made.”
B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant’s head of the Gun seeking the revocation of the additional conduits added to the above building modification permission (this court97Guo3536) but lost and appealed to the Supreme Court. On February 11, 2000, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment below on the ground that “The head of the Gun of the Defendant’s head of the Gun attached a new fence to install a new fence in granting a building modification permission to the Plaintiff is unlawful by imposing any burden without legal grounds.”
(Supreme Court Decision 98Du7527). Around February 19, 2000, the Defendant’s head of the Gun notified the Plaintiff of the change of the official title by striking the part of the additional pipe attached to the above building construction change permission.
C. Meanwhile, the plaintiff on September 16, 1998.