1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Daegu Jung-gu Daejeon-gu B large 113 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building on its ground.

Details of violation of the site location A B, and the area of 1st floor cement block retail store without permission, 108 square meters

B. On April 22, 2013, the Defendant investigated the current status of the instant building on the instant land, and determined that the building entirely different from the building on the building ledger (hereinafter “instant building”) was newly constructed without permission, and notified the Plaintiff on the same day that the instant building should be voluntarily removed by May 22, 2013 pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act, and that if not corrected by the said date, it would be subject to enforcement fines or administrative vicarious execution (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, and the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on June 24, 2013.

On June 27, 2013, after being notified of the above ruling, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant building by July 27, 2013, and notified the Plaintiff that it would be subject to enforcement fines or administrative vicarious execution if not corrected by the above date, and notified the Plaintiff that he would not voluntarily remove the building by July 11, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 7 evidence, Eul's 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The building ledger erroneously prepared the current state of the instant building, and since the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and the instant building, the entire land was constructed at a canter. Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not construct the instant building without permission, there is no ground for disposal. 2) The Plaintiff filed a report on the toilet construction.