Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 6, 2007, the Plaintiff built a temporary building that became a container on the land B and two lots (hereinafter “instant land”) in Guri-si on December 6, 2010 following a building permit, building permission on February 27, 2009, and reporting and acceptance of a report on December 6, 2010, and thereafter, the retention period of the said temporary building was extended until November 29, 2016.
Article 20 (Temporary Building Act 20 (Temporary Building Act 10 households), Article 20 (Temporary Building Act 20), Article 20 (Temporary Building Act 10 households), Article 20 (Temporary Building Act 10 households), Article 20 (Temporary Building Act 20), Article 20 (Temporary Building Act 20 households), Article 20 (Temporary Building Act 2016)
B. On July 4, 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore a temporary building, the extension or location of which is moved (hereinafter “instant temporary building”) to its original state by August 1, 2016, pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act, as follows:
(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Nos. 3 through 6, and 4 of Gap’s No. 3 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate, the defendant should remove the temporary building of this case immediately after its retention period expires. The plaintiff who is obligated to remove the temporary building of this case has no interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case.
However, as long as the temporary building of this case is not yet demolished, the mere fact that its retention period expires cannot be said to have no profit to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's main defense of safety is without merit.
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and the disposition in this case is null and void due to a significant and apparent defect.
1) Unlike the content of permission or report, the Plaintiff did not additionally build or move a temporary building on the instant land. 2) The Defendant.