Plaintiff

The Mayor of the Seocho-si in Gwangju City;

April 26, 2006

1. The defendant's corrective order to restore the original state to the plaintiff on July 12, 2005 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of the area of 5,871.07 square meters in the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the area of 98.64 square meters in the ground warehouse (hereinafter “instant land and warehouse”).

B. On March 30, 2005, the Plaintiff leased the instant land and warehouse to the Nonparty by fixing the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, KRW 5 million monthly rent, and the period from May 30, 2005 to May 30, 2007.

C. On April 18, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty agreed to newly construct a temporary building necessary for the Nonparty’s business on the instant land by taking the Nonparty’s name as the owner of the building in form as the Plaintiff, but the Nonparty agreed to remove the temporary building at the same time as the lease expires and restore the instant land to its original state, and not claim all expenses incurred in constructing the temporary building.”

D. Around May 6, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a report on the construction of a temporary building with the owner as the Plaintiff, and the Defendant received the report on the said temporary building on June 18, 2005, with the condition that “(i) payment of related tax and the effect of the report on the construction of a temporary building arises after the certificate of completion of report is issued, and (ii) it is impossible to install a new main supply facility, such as electricity, water, gas, etc.”

E. On June 29, 2005, the Plaintiff received a civil petition to the effect that, immediately after being notified of the receipt of the report on the above temporary building, the Plaintiff was made at the construction site on the instant land, and that, immediately after being notified of the receipt of the report on the temporary building, it was found that the Plaintiff was installed even a large amount of a steel-frame structure building that was not a pipe structure temporary building that was originally reported, but did not report the completion of the structural construction of the steel-frame structure. On July 6, 2005, the Plaintiff received a civil petition from the Defendant to the effect that “The Plaintiff, who lent the name of the building owner in good faith, becomes an accomplice, requests the confirmation of the illegality of the building.”

F. Accordingly, on July 12, 2005, the Defendant confirmed that the instant building on the land was modified without permission (Pipe ? steel framed structure) and failed to report without permission (However, the previous warehouse owned by the Plaintiff is still separated from the building of the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the said warehouse building was consistent with the above warehouse building), ordered the Nonparty, the actor of the act, to restore the building to its original state pursuant to Article 69 of the Building Act, and issued a corrective order (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on July 12, 2005, that “the owner and the Plaintiff, the land owner, shall be included in the corrective order under Article 69 of the Building Act, and the Nonparty, the actor and the Plaintiff, the land owner, who were the actor, will restore the building to its original state by August 8, 2005).

G. After that, the Plaintiff agreed with the Nonparty to terminate the lease agreement under the above B B, and requested the Nonparty to remove and restore the building in violation of the instant land to its original state. However, the Nonparty did not comply with the said request, and the lawsuit is pending in the lawsuit filed by filing a lawsuit for the claim, such as the name map of the building (2005Gahap8176) in the Suwon District Court’s Sungnam branch court.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 1, 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 15, Gap evidence 16-1, 2, Gap evidence 19-1 through 6, Gap evidence 20-1 through 12, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1 through 4, Eul evidence 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination of legality of disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual owner of the instant illegal building is the Nonparty. The Plaintiff is not only the formal owner of the building, but also the owner, occupant, and manager of the instant illegal building. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to issue the instant corrective order to the Plaintiff.

(b) Markets:

Article 69(1) of the Building Act provides, “If a building site or a building violates this Act or any order issued or disposition taken under this Act, it may order the owner, construction executor, field manager, owner, manager, or possessor (hereinafter referred to as “owner, etc.”) of the building to suspend the construction, or to remove, rebuild, extend, repair, change the purpose of use, prohibit, restrict the use of, or take other necessary measures for, the building for a reasonable period.” The “owner, etc.” eligible to issue the above corrective order shall be deemed to be the person who actually belongs to the profit and loss caused by the construction, and the actual owner shall be the same as the reported owner. In general, if the actual owner and the owner of the building are different from the owner of the building, it is possible to issue the corrective order under the Building Act against the owner of the building in the name of the actual owner, at least in the name of the owner, even if the owner is liable for the acts of the actual owner in the name of the owner, such as the name and the actual owner’s name, the degree of the owner’s participation, etc.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff, as the owner of the land of this case, leased the land of this case and warehouse to the non-party, and permitted the non-party to build a temporary building on the land of this case with the responsibility and expense of the non-party, but the non-party illegally constructed the pipe structure unlike the original report (it does not correspond to the warehouse building owned by the plaintiff). The plaintiff, upon finding it, reported the non-party's act of violation immediately to the defendant, and eventually reported the non-party's act of violation, and the non-party was ordered to receive a corrective order from the defendant, and the lease contract with the plaintiff and the non-party was terminated. Thus, if there are circumstances, the plaintiff is merely the owner of the land of this case in the form of the illegal building of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff has the same interest as the non-party who is the actual owner, or that the non-party participated in the non-party's act

In addition, according to the above facts, the plaintiff does not fall under the contractor, field manager, owner, manager, or possessor of a building stipulated in Article 69 (1) of the Building Act.

Therefore, the disposition of this case rendered by the plaintiff to be subject to the corrective order under Article 69 (1) of the Building Act is unlawful. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Ji-gu (Presiding Judge)