1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a golf practice range in the name of “D golf practice range” at the first basement store (hereinafter “instant store”) underground in the building in the building in the building in the Gu of Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. After renting the instant store from B, the Plaintiff installed 1m wide outdoor stairs on the exterior wall of the building of this case, and covered the roof for the purpose of a light-scale steel-frame structure slope (hereinafter “the roof of this case”) equivalent to the size of 9m square meters on the surface of the building of this case.

C. On March 17, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order with respect to B, “the instant roof is an illegal building that violated Article 42 of the Housing Act, and Articles 11 and 14 of the Building Act,” and “the corrective order with respect to restoration to its original state (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by April 17, 2014, when issuing a corrective order pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act.”

Since then, on April 30, 2014, the Defendant notified the second corrective order ordering the removal of the instant roof, and on June 10, 2014, notified the Defendant of the notice that the enforcement fine will be imposed unless the instant roof is removed by July 10, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Defendant’s principal safety defense is not the other party to the instant disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a person who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of a disposition, etc. may bring an action for revocation.

The other party to an administrative disposition is recognized as standing to sue as a person who has suffered infringement of the interests directly protected by law, and even if the third party is not the direct other party, if the interests protected by law have been infringed by the administrative disposition, he/she shall seek the revocation or nullification