1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the business of food service business (general restaurant) with the location of the business office to the Defendant “Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu (Seoul Metropolitan Government number of 16 units)” and the area of the business place as “79.36 square meters” and operated the restaurant business from that time to that time.

(hereinafter “instant place of business”). On May 12, 2015, the Plaintiff changed the location of the instant place of business from 16 existing units to 21 units in total, and the area of the place of business from 79.36 square meters existing to 104.16 square meters, and completed the report on the change thereof to the Defendant.

B. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) conducted a field inspection on the instant place of business on July 27, 2015; and (b) discovered the fact that the actual area of the place of business fell short of approximately KRW 225 square meters and exceeds KRW 120 square meters; (c) but (d) did not report the change in the area of the business, the Plaintiff was running

C. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report on the change in the area of the business site of the instant business establishment from 104.16 square meters to 225 square meters. However, on August 25, 2015, the Defendant rejected the said report pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) on the ground that “the corridor, stairs, and other parts of buildings (section for common use) leading to multiple sections for exclusive use, which are provided to all or some owners of divided sections for common use, cannot be the object of divided ownership.”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition for Return of this case"

(D) On July 31, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it would be ordered to issue a corrective order with respect to the Plaintiff’s failure to report the change in the size of the Plaintiff’s place of business (the extension of the scope of business), and accordingly, suspended the implementation of the said corrective order, depending on the Plaintiff’s express intent to ask the authoritative authority about the legitimacy of administrative disposition due to the use of the common area as above

E. The Defendant’s instant case on February 9, 2018.