Medical Corporation, Hanyang Medical Foundation (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Head of Mayang-si Mayang-si

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm, Attorney Kim Shin-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 14, 2016

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap7260 Decided July 24, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On November 3, 2014, the defendant revoked the corrective order of the building violating the Building Act against the plaintiff on November 3, 2014.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, this Court cites this case's reasoning by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The contents of "No.4", which are five to tenth of the judgment of the first instance court, are as follows.

"The purpose of the provisions of Articles 44 through 47 of the Building Act concerning the relationship between the site and the road of the building is to specifically regulate the relationship between the site of the building and the road of the public interest to maintain and preserve safe conditions for evacuation, fire-fighting, and sanitary purposes as well as for the convenience of passage of the building users, and to prohibit the construction of buildings or structures on the road," which is not the construction line. The fence of this case installed near the boundary line of each land owned by the road of this case and the intervenor joining the defendant, is installed on the road of this case under the Building Act, and thus, the exercise of the right under the private law is not allowed even if the plaintiff is the owner of the road (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da3978 delivered on March 12, 1993).

The 5th 13th st, “The facts which the Plaintiff’s attorney heard without raising an objection against the motion for intervention on the first day for pleading of the first instance court, which is after the Defendant’s motion for intervention was served by the Intervenor, are added not only to the records, but also to the extent that the facts in the record are apparent.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)