1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are stated are as follows: "No reason exists" in the 8th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance (the plaintiff shall be deemed to be the object of each disposition of this case from 1999 to 2007 (hereinafter "the extension part of this case").

A) The Plaintiff investigated the “existing roof Repair” as the “existing,” and asserts that the Plaintiff’s act of each of the instant dispositions in violation of the Building Act constitutes a violation of the principle of trust protection. However, the Plaintiff appears to have become aware of such fact only through the inquiry report to the Defendant by the court. However, it cannot be deemed that the said investigation was the Defendant’s public opinion, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff formed a trust that the extension part of the instant case was not a violation of the Building Act due to such an investigation. As such, the foregoing assertion is without merit, and is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of “2. additional determination” as to the assertion that the Plaintiff repeats or adds in the trial, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. Under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, in the case of hanok, protruding the eaves or pent roof up to 2 meters perme. The instant building is the hanok, and the instant extension is merely 1.6m with the eaves and pent roof, etc., protruding toward the mast, within 2m, does not require permission or report under the Building Act. Moreover, the instant extension is an object excluded from maintenance, and thus, it is not subject to the restriction on the violation of the Building Act.

Even if the extension portion of this case is not an incidental facility, such as eaves and spaw, the building of this case is an existing unauthorized building that was registered for preservation on December 9, 1957 and is subject to the suspension of maintenance, and is subject to the crackdown on the violation of the Building Act.