1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the first instance are not significantly different from the grounds alleged by the Plaintiffs in the first instance court while appealed by the Plaintiffs, and the first instance judgment dismissing all the claims of the Plaintiffs even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the first instance court are reviewed together with the allegations by the Plaintiffs, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the first instance judgment dismissing all the claims of the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court is that the reasoning for this case is stated in the judgment of the first instance except for the first instance court’s 11th or 11th or 11th of the judgment. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the disposition of this case based on the above provision is unlawful, inasmuch as Article 3-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (Attached Table 1) merely prescribes the criteria for the classification of buildings according to the usage as provided by the Building Act and does not impose any obligation on the owners of buildings, etc. or prohibit specific acts.

However, Articles 79 and 80 of the Building Act provide that the permitting authority may order the owner of a building in violation of the Building Act to take necessary measures, etc. against the owner of the building, and that compulsory performance shall be imposed if the order for corrective measures is not complied with. Article 2(2) of the Building Act and Article 3-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act [Attachment 1] provides that the building does not have the form of independent dwelling as to multiple houses, and that the building does not have the form of independent dwelling as to multiple houses.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that “multi-user houses installed with cooking facilities” constitutes “a building violating the Building Act” and thus subject to corrective orders and compulsory payments (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Du48496, Oct. 25, 2018). Ultimately, the Defendant’s “multi-user houses with cooking towers, which are multi-family houses with cooking facilities, are located” as “buildings violating the Building Act.”