1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is in operation of the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Vice Commissioner (hereinafter “the Vice Director of the instant case”).

B. On January 20, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the building in violation of Article 79(1) of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant corrective order”), specifying the current status of the building in violation of the Building Act, as indicated below, and ordering the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the building in violation of Article 79(1) of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant order”).

[mark] Change of a person subject to a corrective order (C and A) for the construction year (violation year) of the size of the structure in violation of the type of violation (hereinafter referred to as “violation year”), which is non-violation of violation location, such as the owner and act, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “owner”)

C. On March 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) specified the current status of the building in violation as indicated in the Plaintiff’s [Attachment] statement; and (b) ordered the Plaintiff to pay the enforcement fine within the due date as prescribed in Article 80 of the Building Act because it violated the Building Act despite obtaining permission under the said Act; (c) issued the instant disposition ordering the Plaintiff to pay it within the due date for payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (d) combined with the instant corrective order, the Defendant issued the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. Each disposition of the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case must be revoked in a significant and apparent manner as follows.

1) The third vice-directors of this case does not constitute a building under the Building Act, because it is not a structure fixed on the land. Accordingly, the defendant did not have extended the building in violation of the Building Act, but was found to have been issued without any grounds for disposition. 2) The third-party vice-directors of this case is the city.