beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the part as set forth in paragraph (2) below is cited, thereby citing the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. Parts to be dried;
A. On February 1, 2017, the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, “Notice that the charges for compelling the performance was modified on February 1, 2017,” and the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, “Notice that the charges for compelling the performance will be imposed again by calculating the modified charges for compelling the performance.”
B. From 3th to 19th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the third to 8th of the judgment shall be followed as follows.
1) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire entry into the evidence and evidence evidence evidence Nos. 9 and the purport of the argument of the existing building, the instant refining house is registered in the general building ledger as being approved for use on April 30, 1994, with the first floor cement block structure, 163.5 square meters, and 22.5 square meters in cement brick structure/slve storage of one story, and the total floor area of 186 square meters. The Plaintiff purchased the building of this case on March 31, 1994, and completed registration of preservation of ownership of the existing building of this case on February 24, 2017. However, “1st floor cement brick structure/slve warehouse 22.5 square meters” recorded in the above building ledger and the register, and there was no building of this case, which is 164 square meters in general steel structure and 294 square meters in total area of the building of this case, and the Plaintiff was found to have no 163 square meters in total building of this case.264 square meters in the building of this case.
The plaintiff opened part of the plaintiff's land as a road for the passage of residents in spring in 2004 and constructed in 194.