2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building site B and C in the Jeonnam-gun.

B. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a construction permit on the instant third party site that D applied for construction to the third party E site adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “the third party site”).

C. Since then, D changed the name of the owner of the instant detailed building to F, and the Defendant approved the use of the instant detailed building on July 28, 2015.

F was closed on December 2017 while conducting the business of the Third Deputy Director of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following problems arise with respect to the construction of the third secretary general of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

The site of this case is a Class 2 general residential area and natural green-belt area in an urban area, and cultural heritage protection area, and dry field cultivated by residential residents is concentrated in the vicinity, so it is inappropriate to grant permission for construction and approval for completion of construction.

(B) Although F constructed a large-scale illegal building (draw structure) on the Third Deputy Director of the instant case, the Defendant was able to cope with it ever, and the instant Third Deputy Director of the instant case neglected to continue business activities.

As a result, it was illegal because the owner did not directly apply at the time of the commencement of the report on the commencement of the instant case, and the contractor reported it by proxy in violation of Article 2

B. On April 1, 2016, the land category of the instant steel structure, which is an illegal building, was changed on the ground that the land category was previously owned, and even if the land category was not changed until September 28, 2015, which was within 60 days from the date of approval for use, the land category was changed.

The wastewater discharged from the Third Deputy Director of the Gu Office of this case was discharged into an excellent pipe without passing through wastewater discharge facilities.

The plaintiff due to the above defendant's tort is as follows.