1. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of reporting the establishment of a medical institution against the Plaintiff and the disposition of non-acceptance thereof is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit;

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a report on the establishment of a medical institution to establish the “G mental health clinic” (hereinafter “instant building”) under Article 1001 of the Act on the Installation and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (hereinafter “the instant building”). However, the Plaintiff filed a report on the establishment of a medical institution with the Defendant to establish the “G mental health clinic” (the facility area of 473.85 square meters, four sick rooms, one medical specialist, one nurse, and one assistant nurse; hereinafter “instant Council member”). The Defendant was unlawful for the instant Council member’s facility standard under Article 33 of the Medical Service Act, Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 12 of the Mental Health Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Mental Health Act, and Article 7 of the Act on the Installation and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems, contrary to the safety and interest of the sectional owners, occupants, and users under Article 5 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings,” and for the purpose of promoting public welfare under Article 13 of the Building Act.

B. On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a new report on the establishment of the instant Council member (hereinafter “instant report”) with the Defendant by supplementing the grounds for the foregoing non-acceptance, and the Defendant, as a result of the investigation of the instant Council member’s facilities in accordance with the instant report, determined that “the instant Council member’s facilities conform to the relevant statutes, but are inappropriate for public welfare by going against the safety and common interest of the buildings, sectional owners, etc.”

C. According to the above findings, the Defendant’s establishment of the instant Council member against the Plaintiff on June 16, 2017 is contrary to the safety and common interests of the sectional owners, occupants, and facility users under Article 5 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, and is contrary to the safety of buildings under Article 1 of the Building Act.