1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of G site 100 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); Plaintiff B is the owner of a building not registered on the instant land, and Plaintiff C is the owner of over-si, Do, E, and F land located in the vicinity of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On June 28, 2016, C submitted a construction report and an application for permission to engage in development activities for changing the form and quality of land to the Defendant for the purpose of newly constructing a detached house, etc. with the following contents on the instant land on the land surface. On July 18, 2016, the Defendant accepted a building report under Article 14 of the former Building Act (Amended by Act No. 14535, Jan. 17, 2017) and issued a building report certificate to C, thereby granting a building report completion certificate to C (hereinafter “instant permission”).

C. On the other hand, on December 6, 2016, Plaintiff B filed an application for a disposition to eliminate traffic obstruction by asserting that the building under construction with the permission of this case on the ground of land E among the instant permitted land should not be removed and that Plaintiff B should not interfere with passing through the said land. However, on January 4, 2017, the Suwon District Court rendered a decision to dismiss Plaintiff B’s application.

(Case Number: (Case No. 2016Kahap51, hereinafter referred to as "related application case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute with the court, which is significant fact to the court, Gap evidence No. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 through 5 and No. 9 (including the branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Since the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit 90 days after the Plaintiffs became aware of the instant permission, the Defendant asserted that the lawsuit on the part on which the revocation of the instant permission was sought is unlawful, as the period for filing the lawsuit is excessive.

B. We examine Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 6 and 7.