1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of "the reason for the disposition" in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that the court should explain this part of the relevant statutes

2.(b)

Since the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes" is the same as the entry of the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes", they shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The court's explanation on this part of the plaintiff's assertion is with merit of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2.(a)

Since it is the same as the statement of "the plaintiff's assertion", it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. We examine ex officio the determination on whether the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition has a benefit to the lawsuit.

A lawsuit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking to restore the state to its original state by removing the state of illegality arising from such disposition and protect or rescue the rights and interests infringed or obstructed by such disposition, and if the benefits of a lawsuit are likely to recover the rights and interests infringed by an administrative disposition or the benefits to be protected by law, even if recovery is not sufficient, if the possibility of recovery is completely extinguished even if such disposition is illegal, there is no benefit

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Nu676 Decided February 24, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 95Nu17403 Decided January 24, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 201Du30465 Decided July 24, 2014, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in full view of the health stand, evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 1-30465 Decided July 24, 2014, other sectional owners of the instant building, which are an aggregate building, are all sectional owners of the instant building.