beta
Text
1. The part requesting the cancellation of the order to restore the temporary building added by this court to its original state.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning the conclusion of April), except for the modification of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance as described in the following (2). As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8
2. A. D obtained a building permit for the construction of a temporary building from the Defendant on July 7, 2005 with respect to Guri-si B, and the period of validity of the said building permit was extended from July 7, 2009 to July 27, 2009. The Plaintiff on February 27, 2009, in relation to the said building permit, under the name of the Plaintiff and two lots of land (hereinafter “instant land”).
(2) A temporary building with a building area of 56 square meters and a total floor area of 1456 square meters and a 146-dong building with a 1456 square meters as of December 6, 2010. The retention period of the said temporary building was extended until November 29, 2016. (b) On June 16, 2016, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation on the instant land pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act, and on July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff is a temporary building with a ever expanded or located on the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “instant temporary building”).
B) By August 1, 2016, an order was issued to restore to its original state (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
() On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff received the instant disposition. The Plaintiff was in violation of the details of the violation of Article 20(C) of the Act on the Temporary Warehouse Building (36 units) of 2016 m20 m206 m206 m2016 m206 m2016 m206 m2016 m2016 of the Act on the Temporary Storage (10 m20 m2016 m20 m2016 m200 m2016 m200 m200. The Plaintiff did not dispute on the grounds of the 6,12,13, 14 m2, 14 m2, 3, 4, 8 m2,
(2) 6 pages below the 2rd page of the statement, images, and the purport of the entire pleadings.