1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 2010, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant, and constructed a temporary building that became a container on the ground B of Guri-si (hereinafter “instant temporary building”).

B. On March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a report with the Defendant on extension of the retention period of the instant temporary building (from February 28, 2012 to February 28, 2014), and the Defendant accepted it.

Article 20 of the Building Act (Temporary Building Act, Article 20(Temporary Building Act, Article 20(Temporary Building Act, Article 20(Temporary Building Act, 6) of the Building Act, of a temporary warehouse of 2016 illegal 86.4m20 m20,000 m270 m270 m20,000 m20,000 m2.

C. On July 26, 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to remove the instant temporary building by August 26, 2016 on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant removal order”). D.

On October 6, 2016, the Plaintiff did not comply with this, and the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to remove the instant temporary building by November 4, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Order for Removal of this case". 【Ground for Recognition'. 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the retention period extension report for the instant temporary building and other temporary buildings was filed, and it was dealt with as if the Defendant-in-charge reported extension of the retention period for the instant temporary building and other temporary buildings. As such, the report on extension of retention period as of February 20, 2014 should be deemed as both the extension report for the instant temporary building and the extension report for the other temporary buildings, and thus, the instant order for removal promotion on the premise that the retention period for the instant temporary building has expired is unlawful.

Even if it is not so, the number of employees of the defendant is the responsibility of the plaintiff.