A. The Plaintiffs are persons operating the surface bank from the opening date of the business stipulated in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) in each building listed in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”).

B. On October 25, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order (hereinafter “instant corrective order”) with the content that “Class II neighborhood living facilities” shall be restored to their original state without permission as indicated in the attached Table No. 2, as indicated in the attached Table No. 2, and that it shall be restored to their original state (hereinafter “instant corrective order”). On November 29, 2016 and January 2, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order with the content that demands the implementation of the instant corrective order, as described in the attached Tables No. 3 and No. 4 (hereinafter “instant corrective order”).

C. On the date of pleading of the instant case, the Defendant added the grounds for disposition that the Plaintiffs changed the use of each of the instant buildings to “a lodging facility” without permission

(See, the reasoning for the disposition that the Plaintiff changed the use of “a lodging facility” to “a lodging facility” without permission on April 5, 2017 and on October 16, 2017 is not a ground for the disposition. However, as seen below, the reason for the disposition that the Plaintiff changed “a neighboring living facility” to “a communal living facility” or “a lodging facility” to “a lodging facility for a certain period,” and the reason for the disposition that changed to “a lodging facility” is identical to the fact-finding. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s disposition ground for the disposition is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s above ground for the disposition is without dispute. [The Plaintiff’s ground for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. Each entry and image of “A” or “a lodging facility” (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The legality of a lawsuit concerning the part on which the revocation of the future corrective order is sought.

A. We examine ex officio whether the subsequent corrective order constitutes a disposition subject to appeal litigation.

(b) removal of the first-lane warehouse buildings and river sites;