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.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written after 【The 6th day of the judgment of the court of first instance’s 17 to 6th day of the 17th day of the appeal

According to Article 2(1)9 of the Building Act, and Article 3-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, “large-scale repair” means expanding or dismantling a beam of a building, or repairing or altering at least three beams.

As seen earlier, the instant reinforcement corporation’s inserting steel plates and inserting V with regard to 8 places higher than the third floor parking lots of the instant building, and thus, the instant reinforcement corporation constitutes “large-scale repair” as prescribed by the said Building Act and subordinate statutes.

Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 84 of the Building Act and Article 119 (1) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the height of the floor means the height from the upper surface of the floor surface of a room to the upper surface of the floor surface of the upper floor of the upper floor. Thus, the height of the floor of the building in this case is from the upper surface of the floor surface of the second floor to the upper surface of the floor surface of the upper floor.

However, the instant reinforcement work is not the floor surface of the floor structure of the instant building of the second floor, but rather the construction work for the beams of the third floor underground of the instant building, which is under the bottom thereof. Since the third floor underground is a parking lot that is an ancillary facility, it is reasonable to view that the instant reinforcement work ought to obtain consent from at least 2/3 of all occupants in accordance with Article 35 of the former Multi-Family Housing Management Act and Article 35(1) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act by falling under the “large-scale repair of ancillary facilities”

C. Therefore, in relation to the permission for the second large-scale repair of the building of this case, the above application for permission for the act was filed on the ground that at least two-thirds of the occupants of the building of this case did not obtain consent