2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners who own one half of each of the 11.9 square meters of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Road (hereinafter “instant land”) and 30.7 square meters of D (hereinafter collectively “each of the instant land”).

1/6 of the remaining shares of each land in this case is owned by H, and 1/2 of the shares are owned by H.

The current status of each land of this case and its surrounding areas shall be as follows:

F. D. D. C. E. G.

B. On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a building report (hereinafter “instant building report”) with the Defendant on November 9, 2017, to newly construct Class II neighborhood living facilities (limited to retail stores; hereinafter “instant building”) with the size of 1st and 16.2 square meters on each of the instant land as follows:

C. On November 30, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiffs to supplement the instant building report on the grounds of “ex post facto retirement of the building line under Article 46(1) of the Building Act,” but the Plaintiffs filed a civil petition with the purport that the instant building report conforms to Article 46(1) of the Building Act on December 8, 2017.

On December 13, 2017, the Defendant issued a civil petition reply to the Plaintiffs to the effect that “the scope to which the departure from the construction line under Article 46 of the Building Act shall apply ought to be calculated by the width centered on the road including the road in its land category.” On December 15, 2017, the Defendant issued a return disposition on the building report (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiffs on the ground that the construction line under Article 46(1) of the Building Act is not lowered.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Under the premise that this case’s land is a road under the Building Act, the Defendant calculated the centerline of the road including the instant land pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Building Act, and 2 meters thereafter.