1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2016, the Plaintiff started to construct a wooden building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the door-si B (hereinafter “instant land”). Around that time, there was a civil petition filed against the Defendant that caused damage to neighboring land due to the Plaintiff’s illegal construction act. Accordingly, the Defendant’s public official visited the site and confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff was constructing the instant building without permission.

B. On January 18, 2016, the Defendant directed the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant building by March 10, 2016, pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff is constructing a building without filing a building report or report on the construction of a temporary building on the instant land.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

As the Plaintiff did not remove the instant building by March 10, 2016, the Defendant improved the Plaintiff’s voluntary removal of the instant building by March 14, 2016, by March 31, 2016.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal. However, on April 25, 2016, it received a decision to dismiss it from the Standingbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant building is a farming shed as prescribed in Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, and it does not constitute a building subject to a building report under the Building Act. Therefore, the instant disposition issued by the Defendant on different premise is unlawful. 2) Despite the fact that the remainder, excluding four cases among the farming clubs established within the jurisdiction of the Si/Gu-Eup, constituted an unauthorized building for which the term of validity has expired, the Defendant did not voluntarily notify each owner of the farming shed except the Plaintiff, or treat each farming shed as an illegal

Therefore, the instant disposition is against the principle of equality.