beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The head of Plaintiff A, the father of Plaintiff B, and F, the father of the Plaintiff B, did not file a building report on the ground of G and H land (hereinafter “instant land”), and constructed a general steel-frame structure with 14.04 square meters for low temperature storage, 107.61 square meters for the prefabricated building for the purpose of the prefabricated, 107.61 square meters for the prefabricated building, 42 square meters for the prefabricated building for warehouse, and 10.85 square meters for the purpose of storage (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”).
B. On June 3, 2016, Defendant D received a civil petition that an illegal building is constructed on the instant land at the time of residence. On June 15, 2016, Defendant D received a civil petition from a public official in charge I, Defendant E, the same village resident, and Defendant C, the same village resident, seeking opinions that each of the instant buildings was constructed by Plaintiff A, and thereby, made a report on the result of counseling on the manager of the non-compliant building.
Accordingly, on June 16, 2016 and July 20, 2016, the J Dong notified the Plaintiff A of a corrective order to remove each building of this case in violation of Articles 14 and 20 of the Building Act in violation of Articles 14 and 72 of the Building Act.
C. Meanwhile, unlike the above corrective order, the permanent sales market is not deemed to be an illegal building constructed before 2006 on the structure of the assembly-type panel and 10.85 square meters of the general steel-frame structure among each of the buildings of this case, and the permanent sales market is not deemed to be an illegal building. Since 2006, only 14.04 square meters of the assembly-type panel structure and the general steel-frame structure constructed after 2007.61 square meters are deemed to be subject to removal. On September 6, 2016, the permanent sales market notified that only the parts constructed after 2006 among each of the buildings of this case were to be removed (the public official in charge at this time erroneously indicated the owner as K), and the owner or manager at the same time notified that he/she would be removed as the Plaintiffs, but the Plaintiffs did not comply with this.
The Mayor shall stay.