logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.08.23 2018구합437
가설건축물축조신고불허가처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the co-owner of the co-ownership share of the building on land outside C and 2 lots (hereinafter “instant building”). Of the 5th floor above the instant building, the surface of the space above the above 5th floor is linked to the building’s reinforced concrete structure of reinforced concrete structure of the instant building, and the other three sides are installed with the height of 3.9m reinforced concrete structure. The above section installed a reinforced concrete structure that connects the said rail and roof slab, and the above section did not include a roof in the floor area above the 5th floor area on the ground as there is no roof.

Over the upper part of the synthetic resin, it was installed a light plate of synthetic resin and used as a warehouse, etc.

B. On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff’s above act constituted extension of a building without permission, and the Plaintiff and D, the owner of the instant building, issued a corrective order to reinstate the building to its original state pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act.

C. On February 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a report on the construction of a temporary building on the ground that the installation of a light plate of synthetic resin materials with the Government Mayor on February 12, 2018 constitutes “a structure used for storage of a structure similar to a tent,” as stipulated in Article 20(3) of the Building Act, Article 15(5)16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 22(2)1 of the Ordinance on the Construction of the Government City.

The Defendant, who was delegated with the authority to report the construction of a temporary building from the Gu government market, shall not be deemed a temporary building under the Building Act, on the ground that “the details of the report on the construction of the building reported by the Plaintiff, is to prevent the outdoor space of the five-story outdoor interior interior in light of synthetic resin materials, thereby increasing the total floor area of the existing building by indoor space, and constitutes extension under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and thus, cannot be deemed a temporary building under the Building Act.”

arrow