1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on May 8, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant statutes is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) At the time of the disposition of this case, the apartment of this case was made for sale in lots, and the plaintiff was not the manager of the section for common use of the apartment of this case and was not the manager of the section for exclusive use of each household. Thus, the disposition of this case, including the household that was not owned by the plaintiff, was erroneous in designating the other party to the disposition. 2) The former Fire Services Act (amended by Act No. 6893, May 29, 2003; hereinafter "former Fire Services Act") and subordinate statutes, which had been enforced at the time when the building permission of this case was made regarding the apartment of this case, did not require the construction of a completeer system for each household.

Since the apartment building of this case is legally established under the law at the time of the building permit, even if the law was revised to have the complete equipment for each household, it is unlawful to require that the apartment of this case, for which the building permit had already been granted, install the complete equipment for each household, constitutes a retroactive application of the law.

3. The instant disposition constitutes a discretionary act. The Defendant consented to the building permit on the ground that it had been lawfully established at the time of the building permit for the instant apartment, and the instant apartment was not a person who succeeded to the status of the rental business entity from the same-sex comprehensive construction that constructed the instant apartment, for more than 13 years after the use permit. The Plaintiff is a person who succeeded to the status of the rental business entity from the same-sex comprehensive construction that constructed the instant apartment. At the time of the instant disposition.