1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The following facts are newly constructed with permission of a temporary building on May 19, 1987 for the first floor of the total floor area of 561.60 square meters and the second temporary building of 570 square meters in Busan Dong-gu B, 570 square meters, C large 22.5 square meters, D large 19.2 square meters, E large 352.4 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiffs and F are co-owners of the instant land and the temporary building.

The plaintiffs and F are operating a specific part of the temporary building of this case as a restaurant, etc. in their own possession.

The retention period for the instant temporary building was extended until October 17, 2010 due to the continuous extension report, but thereafter, F, one of the co-owners, filed a lawsuit claiming partition of co-owned property against the Plaintiffs on March 2, 2010, and refused to sign and seal the report on extension of retention period for the instant temporary building.

As the retention period of the instant temporary building has expired on November 6, 2012, the Defendant issued an administrative guidance to the Plaintiffs and F to the effect that it would apply for extension of the retention period until November 30, 2012. On May 23, 2013, issued a corrective order to make a report on extension or removal of the retention period until June 24, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs and F to revoke the construction permit of the instant temporary building pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act on the ground that the retention period of the instant temporary building has expired.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The report on extension of the retention period of a temporary building constitutes the act of preserving or managing the temporary building of this case, which is jointly owned by the plaintiffs and F, and thus, the remaining plaintiffs except F can report the extension of retention period as a co-owned share holder.

Therefore, it is legitimate for F to have no consent.