1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant’s main defense as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined

A. The Defendant’s main defense of this case was to construct the warehouse of this case in accordance with each repair disposition of this case and to grant approval for the use of the warehouse of this case. However, there is no benefit in a lawsuit seeking confirmation or revocation of each repair disposition of this case as at the present time the building of this case was already completed and the approval for use was completed.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. (1) A lawsuit seeking revocation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking restoration to its original state by removing an illegal state arising from an illegal disposition and protecting or remedying the rights and interests infringed or interfered with such disposition, and thus, such unlawful disposition is revoked.

If reinstatement is impossible, there is no benefit to seek cancellation.

If construction has been completed on the basis of the construction permit, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation of the construction permit.

As can be seen, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation of a building permit disposition. The same applies to the case where the construction work is completed before filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the building permit disposition, as well as the case where the construction work is completed before the date

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du18409 Decided April 26, 2007, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the health stand and the evidence No. 21-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 21 in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, C performed the construction of the warehouse building of this case in accordance with the repair disposition of this case and completed the construction of the warehouse of this case on July 3, 2015, and the defendant completed the construction of the warehouse of this case on July 3, 2015.