구조물철거 등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Daejeon Daejeon Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 76839.2m2m2 (hereinafter “land before division”) was an aggregate building constructed on the ground (hereinafter “the instant apartment building”), a B apartment building (hereinafter “the instant apartment building”), a kindergarten childcare facilities Ddong (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”), and a group of the instant apartment buildings, kindergartens, etc., registered a site ownership registration for the ownership of the exclusive ownership. The site ownership ratio of the instant kindergarten was March 3/76839.2.
B. After the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant apartment, the land before subdivision on July 14, 2015 was divided into three square meters in accordance with the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land, Daejeon Tae-gu, Daejeon-gu, 7585.9 square meters and E large 953 square meters in accordance with the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land. The land was owned by the owner of the instant apartment, while the land of this case was owned by the owner of the instant apartment, and the land of this case, E, 953 square meters, and the registration of the ownership of the instant kindergarten was cancelled.
C. Meanwhile, at the time of the construction of the instant aggregate building, a retaining wall and a wall were built at the edge of the land before the partition. Of the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1, the retaining wall and a wall (hereinafter “instant structure”) were constructed on the part (a) on the ground that the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 were successively connected to each of the areas on the land located in Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu E, Daejeon.
The plaintiff filed an application with the head of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City for permission to remove a retaining wall and wall located in the area where the access road to the kindergarten of this case was established. However, the head of Seo-gu is required to permit the removal of appurtenant facilities prescribed in Article 35(1) of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act.
On the ground that at least 2/3 of the occupants of multi-family housing have not submitted a written consent, they rejected the application for permission.
On the rejection of the above application for permission, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission for the revocation of the above rejection.