beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.
A. The Plaintiff received a construction permit from the Defendant (Jinjin-gun, prior to his elevation), and received the first order to suspend construction of a multi-household house on the ground that part of the said site was installed with a fence of the neighboring building owner, etc. In spite of the above order, the Plaintiff was subject to a corrective order with the second order to suspend construction, and was imposed a non-performance penalty by failing to comply with the above corrective order.
After that, the Plaintiff completed the above multi-household house, and rejected the Defendant’s application for approval for provisional use, and was found guilty of violating the Building Act on the grounds that the lessee moved into the above multi-household house, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval for construction permit with the Defendant on May 1, 1997. On the 22th of the same month, the Defendant added an additional note to the effect that “Until applying for approval for use of construction, the part of the fence of the neighboring building in the complex should be removed and the wall should be installed on the site boundary, and then the application for approval for use should be filed.”
B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant’s head of Daejeon High Court for the revocation of an additional pipe (97Guc3536) added to the permission for the alteration of the building, but the Plaintiff lost and appealed to the Supreme Court. On February 11, 2000, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below and remanded the case to the Daejeon High Court on the ground that the Defendant’s attachment of a new fence to install a new fence was unlawful on the ground that the Defendant’s attachment of a new fence in granting permission for the alteration
(98Du7527) Around the 19th day of the same month, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change of the official title by striking the part of the additional note that the Plaintiff installed a new fence on the site boundary, which was added to the construction change permission.
C. Meanwhile, on September 16, 1998, the Plaintiff against the Defendant Daejeon District Court.