1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Daegu Jung-gu Daejeon-gu B large 113 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building on its ground.

A wooden/sap 1st floor of 19.83 square meters in the general building register of real estate and sap 19.67 square meters in a single-story house of 19.67 square meters in a single-story house of 19.67 square meters in a single-story house of 7.87 square meters in a separate house of 6 square meters (19.83 square meters in a house of 5 square meters in a house of 5 square meters in a house of 19.67 square meters in a house of 5 square meters in a house of dumen95 square meters (19.67 square meters in a house of 23 square meters in a house of Gamen and sapapap

B. The current status of the building based on the general building ledger and the real estate registration register of the instant building is as follows, and the total building area is 47.37 square meters.

Details of violation of the site location A B, and the area of 1st floor cement block retail store without permission, 108 square meters

C. On April 22, 2013, the Defendant investigated the current status of the instant building on the instant land, and determined that the building entirely different from the building registered and the following buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) were newly constructed without permission. On the same day, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant building would be subject to the imposition of enforcement fines or administrative vicarious execution if it voluntarily removes the instant building by May 22, 2013 pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act and if it fails to correct it by the said date, it would be subject to the imposition of administrative vicarious execution.

On June 27, 2013, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant building again by July 27, 2013, and notified the Plaintiff that it would be subject to the imposition of enforcement fines or administrative vicarious execution if the instant building is not corrected by the said date. On July 11, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would demand the voluntary removal by no later than August 11, 2013.

E. The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the disposition rendered by Daegu District Court 2013Guhap1708, April 22, 2013. The said court compared with the instant building and the structure, form, size, etc. of the existing building, the Plaintiff removed most of the previous building and newly constructed the instant building.