1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit (large-scale repair) with the purport that the construction would be substantially repaired as indicated in the attached building placement map, and the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant on January 11, 2016 to create and request the building ledger.

B. On June 2, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal to grant a building permit (large-scale repair) on the ground that “the instant building is an illegal building that has been constructed without a building permit under the Building Act, and thus the building permit (large-scale repair) is rejected pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act.” ② On January 12, 2016, the Defendant failed to meet the requirements for the creation of the building ledger under Article 12 of the Rules on the entry and management, etc. of the building ledger (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the ground that the instant building does not constitute a building for which permission was granted at the time of construction.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8, 18, Eul evidence 4 and 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The defendant asserts that "each of the buildings of this case was constructed on or before August 31, 1966, which is the location of each of the buildings of this case as urban planning facilities (parks) and was constructed on or before 1974. Thus, according to Article 5 subparagraph 4 of the former Building Act which was enforced at the time of construction, each of the buildings of this case constitutes an unauthorized building because it was constructed without permission since it was constructed without permission from the market in order to build "buildings within urban areas" under Article 5 subparagraph 4 of the former Building Act, which was enforced at the time of construction. 2) The plaintiff asserts that this is as follows. According to Article 5 of the former Building Act, which was enforced at the time of construction of each of the buildings of this case, the total floor area of the buildings of this case is less than 200 square meters or less than 2 stories.