1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 24, 1992, the Plaintiff changed the use on the building ledger concerning the part of the instant building on four occasions until May 4, 2005, after obtaining approval for use on February 24, 1992 as follows.

(2) In the case of a house with two-class residential facilities (office), two-class neighborhood living facilities (office), two-class neighborhood living facilities (office), two-class neighborhood living facilities (office), two-class neighborhood living facilities (office), two-class neighborhood living facilities (office), two-class neighborhood living facilities (office), two-class neighborhood living facilities (office), two-class neighborhood living facilities (office), five-class neighborhood living facilities (office), five-class neighborhood living facilities (office), five-class neighborhood living facilities (office), five-class neighborhood living facilities (office), five-class neighborhood living facilities (office), five-class neighborhood living facilities (office) on December 6, 2004, the purpose of use of which is changed on February 6, 2004.

B. On September 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a motion with the Defendant to correct the use on the building ledger of the instant building into a house in a neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant had the same year.

9. 8. The Plaintiff’s change of the use of the above building into a house at a Class II neighborhood living facility does not constitute a correction of building indication under Article 21(3) of the Regulations on the entry, Management, etc. of Building Ledger (hereinafter “Rules on Building Ledger”) and returned the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that it is subject to reporting of change of use under Article 19 of the Building Act.

(hereinafter “Prior Disposition”). C.

On November 30, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation with the Seoul Administrative Court, but the Seoul Administrative Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 20, 201 (Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap44641), and the Plaintiff on April 26, 2011.