1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 12, 1999, A made a report on the construction of a temporary building with the purport of constructing a temporary store (49.92m2) with a total floor area of 72.9m2 (hereinafter “instant site”) on the Defendant of Daegu-gu Seoul-gu B large 72.9m2 (hereinafter “instant site”) and constructed it.

B. On December 13, 2016, A reported the extension of the retention period of the instant temporary building to the Defendant by December 31, 2019.

The defendant accepted A's report of the extension of the period.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased 227.8 square meters adjacent to the instant building site in a real estate auction procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 18, 2017.

On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit with the content of constructing a building that is a general restaurant, a second class neighborhood living facility (general restaurant, an office) on the land owned by him/her, with the total floor area of 296.84 square meters, and a second class neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “ordinary building”).

On June 1, 2017, the Defendant issued a building permit to the Plaintiff.

E. On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Daegu-gu Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dismissed on September 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is in a neighboring commercial area and an urban-centered place aesthetic district, so a building should be constructed with an open space of 3 meters from the borderline of the site in accordance with the Building Act, etc.

Nevertheless, the temporary building of this case was constructed without having a public notice of 3 meters from the boundary line, thereby impairing the aesthetic view of urban center and causing hindrance to pedestrians' passage.

Therefore, the instant disposition violates the Building Act’s provision on street limitation.