1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B A. A corporation of a farming cooperative (the representative, the plaintiff, and the hereinafter "B farming cooperative") owned C at the time pursuant to Article 15(2) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in sequence in the name of the Korea National Housing Corporation on June 12, 2008 due to the acquisition of public land through consultation and division on June 12, 2008. A corporation of a farming cooperative (the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the hereinafter "B farming cooperative") reported the construction of a temporary building on June 10, 1997, and the defendant accepted a temporary building in addition to the construction of a temporary building in accordance with Article 7(1)4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 200) (hereinafter "the temporary building in this case").

The name of the address of the location owner for the maintenance period of the total floor area for the structural use of the site owner (land size) and the name of the address for the maintenance period of the land E-B farming association in the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, and the place of business of the prefabricated group and office 9.0.6.9

On July 4, 200, the Defendant permitted the extension of the retention period from July 7, 200 to June 28, 2003 upon the request for extension of the retention period of the instant temporary building by the farming cooperative.

However, after June 28, 2003, the farming cooperative reported the extension of the retention period or did not obtain the permission for extension.

C. On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant stating that “The main time is to train the instant temporary building, record it on the building management ledger, or take measures to allow the extension of retention period so that it may continue to use it.” Accordingly, on December 9, 2013, the Defendant filed a civil petition with the Defendant that “the Plaintiff is the district for housing site development under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the Class-I general residential area, neighboring commercial area, and Class-I district unit planning zone under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act for the instant land.”