1. The part concerning the claim for cancellation of the temporary building removal notification among the lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant limited to the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 16, 2012, the Plaintiff is an association established to conduct an urban development project for the Jung-gu Government-si D.

B. On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff reported that three-story temporary buildings (the sample house for use, total floor area of 2,103.18 square meters; hereinafter “instant temporary building”) are built on the E, F, G, and H’s ground (hereinafter “instant temporary building”) and received a certificate of completion of the construction report on the instant temporary building from the Defendant for the retention period until February 28, 2017, around April 11, 2016.

C. On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the retention period of the instant temporary building to the end of February 28, 2018, and the Defendant accepted it.

At the time, the Plaintiff submitted a written consent to the use of the site by the Defendant auxiliary Intervenor C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant auxiliary Intervenor C”), the owner of the site of the instant temporary building.

On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant an extension of the retention period, which extends the retention period of the instant temporary building to February 28, 2020 again.

E. However, on May 28, 2018, the Defendant returned the said extension report to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Defendant did not submit a written consent to land ownership due to the extension of the retention period of a temporary building.”

(hereinafter “instant return disposition”). On May 30, 2018, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a corrective order to restore the instant temporary building to its original state on the ground that “the retention period of the instant temporary building has expired” (hereinafter “instant temporary building removal notification”), and thereafter August 14, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant corrective order”). [This case’s correction order ] without dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, 8, 9, and Eul’s evidence 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the removal notification of this case among the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

(a) ex officio; and