1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manages the second floor 580.5 square meters underground (hereinafter “instant building”) of Pyeongtaek-si B apartment commercial buildings.

B. On August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff originally changed the use of the instant building, which is a resident sports facility, to Class 1 and Class 2 neighborhood living facilities (retail stores and offices).

Therefore, the instant building was used as 29 offices of a size of 20.52 square meters or 25 square meters, one resting room, and one retail store of a size of 87 square meters.

C. On March 17, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate the Plaintiff to its original state by April 14, 2017, pursuant to Article 93(1) of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, on the ground that the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s instant building for the purpose of providing accommodation, not for the purpose of the building ledger.

On August 28, 2017, the Defendant, in violation of Article 19 of the Building Act, changed the use of the instant building from Class 1 and Class 2 neighborhood living facilities (retail stores and offices) to accommodation facilities (multi-living facilities), and issued a corrective order to voluntarily remove the building by September 12, 2017 pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant building was not used as accommodation facilities, but as an office or retail store in accordance with its original purpose of permission.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. A judgment 1 has the burden of proving the legitimacy of a disposition to the defendant who asserts the legality of the disposition.

However, in a case where the defendant reasonably accepted the legality of the disposition, the disposition is justifiable, and the burden of proving the exceptional circumstances contrary to this is against the plaintiff as the counter party.