beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in livestock farming business with the trade name of “F” in the land of G and 23 lots (hereinafter “instant land”) outside Gyeonggi-gun D (hereinafter “D”).
B. On November 15, 2006, the court below ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the animal related facilities on the land outside E and nine lots before the order to suspend the construction of the building on June 2, 2006. The court below ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the animal related facilities on the land outside E and the non-party nine lots of land (the Government District Court Decision 2006Guhap2935) due to the Plaintiff’s failure to voluntarily remove the building under the Act on November 15, 2006 (Ga evidence 11) on the ground that the above order was in violation of the administrative procedure (Ga evidence 1). The Defendant did not voluntarily notify the Plaintiff of the removal of the building “like plant related facilities” on the non-party E and the building (the 368.5m27.43m2, 277.43m2, and 66m206m2, the building construction permit under the Building Act within the prescribed period.
B) On November 21, 2006 and November 27, 2006, the Defendant: (a) the stable for the purpose of “vegetative plant-related facilities” built on two lots of land outside G among the instant land (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).
(C) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the order of removal order based on the mooring order of the Plaintiff’s Government District Court 2006Guhap5811 as the Defendant’s District Court Decision 2006Guhap5811, on the ground that the Plaintiff is an illegal building violating the Building Act and the Building Act, and the Plaintiff’s claim on the remainder of the building indicated in the foregoing paragraph (Ga), excluding the warehouse size of 6 square meters, was sentenced to dismissal.
After that, the Seoul High Court filed the plaintiff's appeal on November 6, 2008.