1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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.

1. As to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is as follows, with the exception of adding the same judgment as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment as to the newly asserted at the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). As such,

From 2th to 13th to 2th to 12th to 2th to 2th to 3th to 4th to 5th to 1

On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant the “written opinion on the advance notification of indemnification” (No. 1-1) and two photographs (No. 1-2) before and after the removal, and the said written opinion stated “the details of the notice of imposition of indemnification: B: the occupied area; 47m2; the “statement of the notice of imposition of indemnification”; “the attachment of photographs and the date of removal; September 5, 2013”; and “the attachment of photographs and the date of removal,” and “the date of removal, September 5, 2013.” In Chapter 3 of the first instance judgment, the “after September 1, 2013” is deemed “from September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017.”

The following shall be added between the 8th sentence and the 4th sentence.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's notice of indemnity was a practice to deliver it to the lessee without the tenant's direct opening or opening of the house of this case, and thus, the plaintiff could not be aware of the above disposition, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff implicitly delegated the right to receive the defendant's notice of indemnity to the security guards.

However, even if it is assumed that the Plaintiff and the lessee of the instant building had such practices as the above assertion, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had taken measures, such as ordering the security guards to refuse to accept the Defendant’s notification related to the indemnity, the said circumstance alone is the domicile of the Defendant’s notification related to the indemnity.