1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2003 to 2003, the Plaintiff is a person who raises dogs by installing dogs on the land of the wife B in the wife population B.

B. On September 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff constructed an inspection and management company listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant inspection”) without obtaining permission; and (b) ordered the Defendant to correct the construction by October 16, 2017 pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists with respect to the part concerning the check in this case, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a building under the Building Act, since the Plaintiff’s assertion is not settled on the land and the columns or roof are merely built on the aggregate of the cases.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition issued under the premise that the instant dog is a building is unlawful.

(b) Attached Form 2 of the relevant statutes;

C. According to Article 2(1)2 of the Building Act, the term "building" means a structure settled on the land, which has a roof and columns or walls and facilities appurtenant thereto, an office, a performance hall, a shop, a garage, a warehouse installed on the underground or elevated structure, and other structures prescribed by Presidential Decree. Here, a structure fixed on the land does not necessarily mean only a structure fixed on the land that is impossible to move because it is impossible to move, but it is not easy to move by separating the attached structure from the land in a common way, but it includes the cases where the original purpose of use is settled for a considerable period of time, and is attached thereto.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do945 delivered on June 11, 1991, etc.). D.

Judgment

Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 42, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, respectively.