The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 2015, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that “A temporary building for the purpose of livestock rearing room (hereinafter “instant temporary building”) will be built for the period of October 2, 2018 during which the period of retention was set up on eight parcels, other than that of the Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun.”

The defendant accepted the above report on October 6, 2015, and the plaintiff constructed the temporary building of this case around that time.

B. On September 11, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the retention period of the instant temporary building was expired on October 2, 208, and notified the Plaintiff that “if intending to extend the retention period of the instant temporary building, it shall file a report on the extension of the retention period of the temporary building at least seven days prior to the expiration of the retention period.”

(hereinafter “Prior Notice”). C.

On September 13, 2018, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on September 13, 2018 the extension of the retention period of a temporary building with the purport that “the retention period of the instant temporary building will be extended by October 2, 2021.”

On September 21, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on September 21, 2018 that “The instant temporary building is not used for the purpose of livestock rearing room as a result of consultation with the relevant department (environmental) pursuant to Article 20(7) of the Building Act, and thus, the Defendant refused to accept the report on extension of the retention period of the instant

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1 to 5 (including a paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap’s Nos. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1, pursuant to Article 15-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, notified the Plaintiff of whether it is possible to extend the retention period by 30 days prior to the expiration date of the retention period of the instant temporary building, but did not notify the Plaintiff of whether it is possible to extend the retention period by giving the instant prior notice on September 11, 2018, prior to the expiration date of the retention period.

Thus, the prior notification of this case is the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.