Han-man International Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 12, 2017

Incheon District Court Decision 2015Gahap56808 Decided September 22, 2016

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim as to the cancellation is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 6% interest per annum from June 17, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The developments leading up to the construction of the building in this case

1) The Defendant is a company which was awarded a contract for the installation of boiler (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the construction works in the ○○○○○○○○ 1 and 2 set forth in the Republic of Korea-China Development Co., Ltd., and subcontracted part of the said construction works from Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant construction work”).

2) Around May 2013, the Defendant purchased a temporary building (on May 31, 2015, the period of existence) constructed on the ground (on May 31, 2015, the period of existence was the same as that of the construction work (on May 21, 2015, hereinafter “instant building”) from two industry companies (hereinafter “dusan Heavy Industries”), and issued a new report on the construction of the instant building to the head of △△△-si, the competent administrative office, around June of the same year, after purchasing a temporary building (hereinafter “instant building”) constructed on the ground (on May 31, 2015, the period of existence was 2 omitted) from the said construction site, which is located on the said three lots, and the period of permission to change the area of the said building from the said three-dimensional Heavy Industries to the Defendant under Article 56(1) and (2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “the period of permission to temporarily use the instant building). The period of permission was extended from 201 to the original use period of the construction work (the temporary construction work) to 2000.

B. Conclusion of a sales contract for the building of this case by the plaintiff and defendant

1) On May 13, 2014, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, etc. concluded a contract to purchase the instant building with the Defendant for the purpose of operating a lodging place for employees belonging to the Defendant in the instant building (hereinafter “the instant first sale contract”) and a contract to use the instant building for KRW 50 million between the Defendant and the Defendant for the purpose of operating a lodging place for employees belonging to the Defendant in the instant building (hereinafter “the instant first sale contract”), and drafted a separate agreement with the sales contract for the temporary building, and the main contents thereof are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 가설건축물 매매계약서 제1조(매매대금) 1. 상기표시물건의 매매금액은 5억 5,000만 원으로 한다. 2. 상기 매매대금에는 “갑”(피고를 지칭한다)이 집행한 부지의 임차료를 포함한 금액으로 한다. 3. “을”(소외 1 등을 지칭한다)은 “갑”에게 1항의 매매대금을 계약금, 중도금, 잔금 형식으로 지급하며 지정된 날짜에 지정한 계좌로 입금하여야 하며, “갑”은 중도금 입금 후 익일 가설건축물을 인수한다. 계약금: 3억 원(계약시), 중도금: 1억 원(2014. 5. 23.), 잔금: 1억 5천만 원(2014. 6. 13.) 제2조(가설건축물 축조관련 등) “을”은 “갑”이 삼척시 (주소 2 생략) 외 7필지에 신고한 가설건축물 축조신고필증과 개발행위 허가증에 포함된 복구계획 관련한 일체의 권리나 의무를 포괄적으로 승계하며 명의를 “을”의 책임하에 변경한다(다만, “갑”은 변경하도록 협조한다). 제3조(계약의 해지 또는 해제) “을”은 본건 물건 사용을 위한 관련행정기관의 인,허가가 불가하거나 명의 변경 불가시는 본 계약서는 무효로 한다. 이 경우 위약금 없이 본 계약을 해지 또는 해제할 수 있으며, “을”은 일체의 이의를 제기하지 못한다. 계약의 해제 및 해지사유 발생시 제반 비용은 검토 후 “을”은 “갑”의 지시에 따라야 한다. 그리고 고의적인 지연사유가 발생시 모든 책임은 “을”에 있다. 제6조(기타) 5. 피고의 기능직의 숙소이용시 1인 기준 (월)300,000원으로 산정하고 직원숙소사용은 호실 기준 (월) 600,000원으로 산정한다. 별도합의서 제1조(현 숙소 인원보장) “갑”은 현시설에서 숙소이용 인원 130명을 △△읍에서 공사를 수행시 보장하여 준다. 그리고 고의적인 숙소사용을 협조하지 아니할 경우 방을 기준으로 2인실은 500,000원, 3인실은 750,000원을 현장별로 청구할 수 있다(현숙소 현장별 이용기준). 제2조(숙소이용관련) “갑”은 근로자의 숙소인 “A동”과 “C동”은 1인당 300,000원을 책정하며, “B동”은 숙소방(12실)을 기준 600,000원으로 책정한다(전기세 등의 부대비용 일체 포함) 제6조(건물의 명도) 잔금 지급일인 2014. 5. 16.에 “갑”은 "을“에게 건물을 명도하여 주며 이날을 기준으로 임대료를 계산한다. 제7조(건물외 명의변경) 1. 임대부동산 임차기간(소외 3 외 3인: 2015. 12. 31.까지, 2015년 12월 명의변경) 2. 가설건축물 존치기간(2015. 5. 31.까지, 2015년 5월 명의변경) 4. 명의 변경 지연으로 발생한 경비는 산출하여 정산한다. 5. 명의 변경은 “을”이 원하는 시기에 공사도급계약서를 첨부하여 원활하게 명의변경 할 수 있도록 협조한다.

2) Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, etc. paid the Defendant a total of KRW 500 million on May 21, 2014 as the purchase price of the instant building, KRW 30 million on May 27, 2014, KRW 100 million on May 27, 2014, and KRW 500 million on June 17, 2014.

3) On October 27, 2014, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, etc. established the Plaintiff. On October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant building at KRW 500 million (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”), and entered into a night-use agreement with the Defendant on the instant building, and the content of the contract is as stated in a separate agreement with the preceding temporary building sales contract, but as follows, written a separate agreement with the sales contract for the temporary building, the content of which was partially modified, and the said sales price was to be replaced by KRW 500 million paid by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, etc. pursuant to the instant primary sales contract.

Article 3 (Termination or Rescission of Contracts) 1. B (referring to the plaintiff) of the List Temporary Building Sales Contract (referring to the "B"), contained in the main text, shall be null and void if the authorization or permission of the relevant administrative agency for the use of the goods is not granted or if the name is not changed: Provided, That the name of "B" shall cooperate with "B" (referring to the defendant) on the ground of "B."

C. Delivery of the building of this case, and possession and use by the plaintiff

Around May 16, 2014, the Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant building as accommodation facilities, such as the Defendant’s employees, until the instant building is returned to the Defendant on May 31, 2015.

(d) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 13, 17 through 19 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff agreed to invalidate the instant sales contract where it is impossible for the Defendant to change the name of temporary use of farmland for other purposes and to relocate the title of the instant building. According to the questionnaire received from relevant administrative agencies, the Plaintiff cannot obtain a transfer of the name of the instant building from the Defendant, or a change in the name of temporary use of the instant building site, and thus, the instant sales contract should be null and void or cancelled. Accordingly, the Defendant should return the purchase price already received to the Plaintiff, five hundred million won.

B. Determination

1) Whether authorization or permission of the relevant administrative agency for the use of the building of this case is not granted or the change of name is impossible

A) Legal regulations for the use of the instant building in the name of the Plaintiff

At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the said contract shall be null and void (Article 3) where the authorization and permission of the relevant administrative agency for the use of the instant building is not granted or the name is not changed.

Therefore, according to the health stand, the procedure for authorization and permission of the relevant administrative agency necessary for the use of the building of this case in the name of the plaintiff, as seen later, and the related regulations are examined as follows: (i) permission to temporarily use farmland under Article 36 of the Farmland Act; (ii) permission to engage in development activities under Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act; and (iii) permission to change the name of the plaintiff with respect to the "report of a temporary building under Article 20 of the Building Act" which was under the name of the defendant at the time of the sales contract of this case (the above procedure is required for the defendant to change the above authorization and permission, etc. even at the time of the purchase of the building of this case from the two Heavy Heavy Industries).

B) Whether the alteration procedure of permission for temporary use of farmland for other purposes under Article 36 of the Farmland Act is possible

(1) Article 36(1)2 of the Farmland Act provides that a person who intends to temporarily use a site office or incidental facilities for a main purpose project (limited to a project permitted in the farmland concerned) or other equivalent facilities for the purpose of “establishment of a site office or appurtenant facilities or piling up or laid off things,” shall obtain permission from the head of a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu on the condition that he/she restores farmland after using the farmland for a certain period (the same shall apply to the modification of permitted matters)

The purport of the provision on temporary use of farmland for other purposes is to resolve inconvenience that may arise from farmland conversion procedures by temporarily permitting the use of farmland for other purposes than agricultural management on the premise of restoration to farmland. In addition to the above provision and purport, (i) it does not limit a person subject to permission to the relevant business entity performing the main purpose project; and (ii) it is reasonable to deem that not only the main purpose but also the main purpose of the application for permission on temporary use of farmland (Article 32(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act) and Article 37(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act [Article 25917 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25917, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply] is not a provision requiring the person subject to permission to be a main purpose project; and (iii) if the direct operation of incidental facilities, such as temporary lodging for the main purpose project, on-site restaurant, etc., is not appropriate to deem that the said incidental facilities are installed for other business entity.

(2) The Plaintiff, who acquired the instant building from the Defendant, did not actually implement the “main purpose business” under the above provision. However, according to the instant sales contract and separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc., the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a night-use contract on the instant building at the same time as the instant sales contract, and the principal purpose of the instant sales contract concluded with the Defendant was to ensure 130 persons of the Defendant’s employees at the time of the instant first sales contract [at the time of the instant sales contract, 130 persons of the night-use accommodation at △△△△△,” but the period of guarantee of 130 persons of the night-use accommodation was limited to September 2014, but it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff continued to use the instant accommodation as the accommodation of the Defendant’s employees at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, including the Plaintiff’s accommodation facilities at KRW 30,000,000,000,000 won, and most of the Defendant’s employees and accommodation facilities at KRW 2646,7965,75,75.

In addition to the above circumstances, since the retention period of the building of this case was up to May 31, 2015 at the time of the sales contract, it is unclear whether the building of this case can continue to be used during the subsequent period (the defendant did not guarantee any extension of the period after the above period was concluded). In full view of the above circumstances, the plaintiff's main purpose business is to acquire and use the building of this case by providing temporary accommodation, etc. for employees belonging to the defendant under a lodging agreement, etc., and thus, it also constitutes a person subject to permission for temporary use of farmland for other purposes under the above provision (part of the land subject to permission is also an agricultural promotion zone under Article 28 (1) 1 of the Farmland Act, but it is also difficult to view that the new owner of the land of this case was to change the location of the building of this case to be permitted for temporary use of farmland for the same purpose as that of the plaintiff's temporary use of farmland for other purposes under Article 32 subparagraph 9 of the same Act, and Article 29 (7) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act as well.

C) Whether a modified procedure for permission for development activities under Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is possible

Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that “a change in the form and quality of land” shall be one of the development activities subject to permission, and Article 56(2) of the same Act provides for the procedures for the change of permission. The Defendant also received permission for the change of development activities (land form and quality change) in accordance with the above provisions in the process of acquiring the instant building from the two industries. In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, there is no reason to restrict the permission for the change of development activities under the above provisions regarding the site, etc. of the instant building.

D) Whether it is possible to move the name of a temporary building under Article 20 of the Building Act

(1) Article 20(3) of the Building Act provides that “A person who intends to build a temporary building for the purposes prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as disaster recovery, entertainment, exhibition, construction temporary building, etc. shall commence construction work after filing a report thereon with the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, the Special Self-Governing Province Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu in accordance with the retention period, installation standards, and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 15(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25652, Oct. 14, 2014) to which he/she is delegated (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25652, Jan. 14, 2014) provides that “a temporary building for the purpose prescribed by Presidential Decree

Since field employees, lodging houses for workers, etc. temporarily installed in relation to construction works, etc. fall under a temporary building for construction works under the above provision, the building of this case, which the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for the use of a lodging place, provided as an on-site employee, a lodging house for workers, etc., constitutes a temporary building

(2) Furthermore, there is no express provision regarding the procedure for the change of ownership of a temporary building for construction purposes, and the procedure for the change of ownership of a temporary building for construction purposes.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 12, around May 12, 2015, the plaintiff asked the head of △△△-Eup, the competent authority of the building in this case, about the procedure for the transfer of the name of a temporary building, and the head of △△-Eup, as to the transfer of the name of a temporary building for construction, the change of the name is impossible because the Building Act does not provide for the change of the name of the owner of the temporary building in relation to the transfer of the name of the building for construction, and in order to use the temporary building for construction already reported under the name of the purchaser, he/she shall re-register the report on the construction of a temporary building pursuant to Article 20

The inquiry inquiry at the head of △△△ Eup is interpreted to mean that a temporary building may be used for construction works already reported by re-reporting a temporary building pursuant to Article 20 of the Building Act in the event that a change in name is carried out with respect to a temporary building already reported in accordance with other individual Acts and subordinate statutes.

Therefore, even though the plaintiff could not go through the procedure for changing the name of a temporary building formally, it shall be deemed that the building of this case can be used by the method of re-reporting the report of the temporary building (7) (the defendant also made a new report on the construction of a temporary building after purchasing the building of this case from the two industries, and the plaintiff can go through the procedure for changing the name of the building under the relevant individual laws).

E) As to the plaintiff's questioning and reply to the competent administrative agency

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 11 and 13, from March 2015 to July 2015, the plaintiff asked the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the three-party Mayor, whether the right to permit temporary use of the building and farmland for other purposes can be purchased or changed, and how the procedure for the transfer of the name of the building in this case can be used. The above administrative agency made a reply to the following contents (hereinafter referred to as "the inquiry of this case"). The individual reply can be acknowledged as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 ① ■ 농림축산식품부장관 ○ 질의요지: 농지의 타용도 일시사용허가 양도양수 가능 여부 ○ 회신내용: 농지법 제35조 제1항에 따른 농지의 타용도 일시사용허가 기간이 만료되었거나 해 당 목적사업이 완료되었을 때에는 타용도 일시사용허가조건에 따라 농지로 원상복구를 하여야 하는 것이 원칙이며, 허가 기간이 남았다고 해서 해당 허가권을 타인에게 양도·양수(매매)하는 것은 타당하지 않음. ■ 삼척시장 ② [2015. 4. 16.자, 2015. 4. 20.자 회신] ○ 질의요지: 공사용 가설건축물과 농지의 타용도 일시사용 허가권을 매매(관계자 변경)할 수 있는 지 여부 ○ 회신내용 → 농지의 타용도 일시사용 관련: 타용도 일시사용허가(협의)는 타인에게 양도·양수할 수 있는 것이 아니므로 타용도 일시사용허가(협의) 기간이 종료하였거나, 목적사업이 완료되었을 경우 에는 당초 허가조건에 따라 농지로 원상 복구해야 함. 농지로의 복구는 당초 농지상태와 같거 나 더 양호한 상태로 만드는 것을 의미함. 다만, 주목적사업(○○○○○○ 1, 2호기 보일러 설 치) 공사 기간이 연장되는 경우에는 그 기간의 범위에서 기간연장을 위한 타용도 일시사용변경 협의가 가능함. 그러나 다른 업체가 ○○○○○○ 1,2호기 보일러 설치공사와는 별개의 목적으 로 해당 농지를 타용도로 사용하고자 한다면, 기존 업체 피고가 해당 필지를 농지로 원상복구 완료한 이후 신규로 타용도 일시사용허가(협의)를 신청하여야 함. → 가설건축물의 매매 등 양도·양수 관련: 건물에 대한 매매 등은 개인 간의 계약에 의한 사항으 로 법령으로 제한할 수 없으나 가설건축물의 명의변경에 대하여 건축법상 규정되어 있지 않음. ③ [2015. 4. 22.자 회신] ○ 질의요지: 공사용 가설건축물의 매매시 매수자가 ○○○○○○발전소 건설업체가 아닌 경우에는 매매(양도양수)할 수 있는지 여부 ○ 회신내용: 공사용 가설건축물은 당해 공사에 필요한 규모의 임시사무실, 임시창고, 임시숙소 등을 말하는 것으로 당해 공사와 무관한 사람 또는 법인으로 매매 등 양도 되었다면, 양수자가 본 가설건축물이 당해 공사에 필요한 규모의 가설건축물임을 입증하지 못할 경우 공사용 가설건축물로 볼 수 없음. 또한, 2015. 4. 20.자로 질의 회신한 바와 같이 농지의 타용도 일시사용의 목적과도 부합하지 않으므로 농지의 원상복구는 물론 본 공사용 가설건축물도 철거하여야 함. ④ [2015. 7. 13.자 회신] ○ 질의요지: 피고가 ○○○○○○ 1, 2호기 보일러 설치공사와 노무자 숙소로 사용하기 위하여 타용도 일시사용허가를 받아 사용 중인 가설건축물을 ○○○○○○ 1, 2호기 설치공사업체가 아닌 일반인(법인)이 가설건축물을 ○○○○○○ 1, 2호기 보일러 설치공사의 노무자 숙소로 사용하여 숙박업을 하는 경우에는 회신내용 중에서 별개의 목적인지 동일한 목적인지 여부 ○ 회신내용: 동일한 목적이 아니며, 농지의 타용도 일시사용 허가권은 양도·양수(매매)하는 것이 아님. 삼척시는 해당 농지에 대해 피고의 신청서와 사업계획서를 심사하여 일정 기간 사용한 후 농지로 복구하는 조건으로 타용도 일시사용 허가(협의)를 해준 만큼, 해당 농지는 피고(허가받은 자)가 ○○○○○○ 1, 2호기 보일러 설치공사에 따른 부대시설 설치(허가받은 목적)를 위해 사용한 후 농지로 원상복구해야 함. 허가받지 않은 자가 농지를 타 용도로 사용하는 경우에는 농지법 제58조에 따라 5년 이하의 징역 또는 5천만 원 이하의 벌금에 처해지게 됨.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the procedure for the modification of authorization and permission by an administrative agency for the transfer of the name of the instant building, etc. is impossible solely based on the questionnaire. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the procedure for the modification of authorization and permission on the instant building is impossible based on the instant questionnaire is not acceptable.

The phrase “1 inquiry” means only confirming the text of Article 36(1) of the Farmland Act to the effect that when the period of permission for temporary use of farmland for other purposes expires or the purpose business is completed, it is impossible to change the name of temporary use of farmland for other purposes in cases where the period of permission for temporary use of farmland for other purposes expires or the purpose business is not transferred.

(1) The term “B” refers to the contents of Article 36(1) of the Farmland Act, such as the term “(i) inquiry”, and Article 36(1) of the same Act, and where another company uses it for a purpose separate from the main purpose project, it is not a purpose for the same main purpose project, but a purpose for the same main purpose project. The term “B” merely is a principle that there is no express provision on the change in the name of a temporary building under the Building Act, and it is not a separate report if a temporary building is acquired.

The third inquiry is interpreted to mean that if a temporary building is transferred, the transferee can be deemed a temporary building for construction work if he proves that it is a temporary building of the scale necessary for the construction work.

No.4, “The No.4 inquiry” refers to a case where the transferee of the building of this case from the Defendant uses the building of this case for the purpose of accommodation, separate from the Defendant, with the content that it cannot be deemed as the same purpose as the initial permission. It cannot be deemed as a case where the main purpose is to use the building of this case as a lodging for the Defendant’s employees.

2) Whether the instant sales contract is null and void

At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that “the Plaintiff comprehensively succeeds to all rights or obligations related to the construction report on temporary buildings and the restoration plan included in the permission for development activities of the instant building, and the name is changed under the Plaintiff’s responsibility (Article 2 (Article 2) 9) is as seen earlier.”

In addition to the interpretation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, although the name change, etc. under the sales contract of this case is stipulated as the responsibility of the Plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be readily concluded that the authorization, permission, change of name, etc. of the administrative agency related to the building of this case is impossible, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff merely went through the questioning reply, etc. after the sales contract of this case; and (b) the Plaintiff did not take any procedure for permitting the change of the building of this case to the competent

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the contract of this case is null and void is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Yang Sung-ju (Presiding Judge)

1) Part of the state is an agriculture promotion zone under Article 28(1) of the Farmland Act, and part of the farmland promotion zone is outside the agricultural promotion zone (No. 18).

2) On November 2, 2017, the inquiry reply to the Ministry of Government Legislation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (farmland-5047 attachment) is also the same purport. According to the results of the fact inquiry about the three-dimensional market of the trial court, the three-dimensional market is also entitled to temporarily use the farmland if the “person who intends to install on-site offices or ancillary facilities without relation to whether he/she directly performs the main purpose business” under Article 36(1) of the Farmland Act is “a person who intends to install on-site offices or ancillary facilities,” and when requesting consultation on temporary use of farmland for other purposes in connection with authorization, permission, approval, etc. under Article 36(2) of the Farmland Act, the said person who intends to conduct the relevant business may use the farmland for a certain period and then use the farmland for the purpose of restoring it to farmland for a certain period.”

Note 4) Each Note 4

4) Accommodation expenses for a period from May 13, 2014 to September 2014 during which 130 livelihood security personnel applies (from May 13, 2014 upon which the first sale contract of this case was concluded to September 2014) are KRW 175,50,000 (monthly 39,000,000). The difference in accommodation expenses for the actual number of users from October 2014 to March 2015 is not significant.

5) Since then, the Defendant was extended the retention period by December 31, 2015 (No. 19).

6) There is no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff operated accommodation business, etc. or intended to report accommodation business against many and unspecified persons (see each week 7).

(7) The Plaintiff’s business constitutes a temporary building for construction work, etc. under the Public Health Control Act. The Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion also appears to be based on the administrative interpretation attached to the above reference document (it refers to the construction work’s construction work’s construction work’s construction work’s 2th September 2017. It is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s business constitutes a temporary building for construction work’s 1st century; (b) the Plaintiff’s construction work’s 4th anniversary of the fact that it does not involve business permission or report pursuant to Article 15(5)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; and (c) the Plaintiff’s construction work’s 2nd anniversary of the above administrative construction work’s construction work’s 4th anniversary of the fact that it is necessary to maintain scenic view, etc.; and (d) the Plaintiff’s construction work’s 2nd anniversary of the construction work’s 1st century’s construction work’s construction work’s 2nd and 3th construction work’s construction work’s 2nd.

8) According to Gap evidence No. 12, the head of △△ Eup stated that a temporary building for the construction work must meet the necessary size for the construction work. In light of the size of the building in this case, the number of workers belonging to the defendant and the field number, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that the building in this case exceeds the necessary size for the construction work in this case ( even according to the evidence No. 23, the documents attached to the construction report for the temporary building construction report are “1. employee reduction, 2. head office certificate, 3. business registration certificate, 4. land use approval letter, 5. arrangement map, 6. ground plan and construction contract for the construction work

9) Article 2 of the instant sales contract was also maintained in the instant sales contract.