1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is Sung-nam City on July 25, 2008 against the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

Seoul brightness Credit Union, including the details of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant building and the use of the instant building, has constructed the building on the ground of 222, 199, 199, which is currently designated as a general social welfare center in accordance with the Class 1 district unit planning of the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant building”), and constructed the building on the ground of 222, 199, the main purpose on the general building ledger is a social welfare facility.

6.3. That approval for use has been obtained, and that year;

8. 18. The main purpose of the instant building was indicated and corrected as educational research and welfare facilities, and leased it to the Plaintiff, etc.

After that, the Plaintiff purchased the building of this case around June 200 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name on the building of this case on April 26, 2001.

The detailed use of the building of this case on the general building ledger is the parking lot, mechanical room for the second underground floor, the water bath for the second underground floor, the water treatment room for the second underground floor, the welfare space for the first floor, the assembly room, the office, the second floor, the infant center for the aged, the care center for the handicapped, the third through the fifth floor for the visually handicapped, and the water tank for the rooftop.

After or at least after the lease of the instant building, the Plaintiff was used by the Plaintiff’s students of the vehicle and the university operated by the Plaintiff for practical training in the relevant branch hospital. In detail, the first underground floor was used as a restaurant and laboratory, the first and second floors as a laboratory and a lecture room, and the third and fifth floors as a dormitory.

On April 25, 2008, the Defendant issued a corrective order pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act to restore the building to its original state on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 19 of the Building Act by using the building of this case differently from its use on the building ledger, and the same year.

5. 23. The second corrective order was issued.

Around July 23, 2008, the Plaintiff restored the 1, 3, and 5th floor of the instant building to its original state, and the Defendant on July 25, 2008.