1. The Defendant’s corrective order to reinstate the Plaintiff on November 29, 2016 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 19, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased 401 to 405 commercial buildings located on the fourth floor of the building C (hereinafter “instant facilities”). On October 22, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased 401 to 405 commercial buildings located on the fourth floor of the instant facilities jointly for the purpose of using B, D, and E large 240.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) for the attached parking lot of the instant facilities.

B. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff received a construction report completion certificate from the Defendant to newly construct a building of a size of 65.52 square meters on the 1st floor above the ground of light metal structure (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land, and completed the completion inspection on June 29, 2016.

C. On November 29, 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore the original state pursuant to Article 19-4(1) of the Parking Lot Act on the ground of the change of the use of an attached parking lot without permission.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1-2, 3, 5-2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul's testimony and the whole purport of the arguments of the witness F

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant land without a ground for disposition is not an attached parking lot for the instant facilities. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise is unlawful. (2) The Plaintiff, who violated the principle of trust and protection, sought opinions about the construction of the instant building by finding a public official in charge of the construction report team at the time of leisure three times on March 2016, and responded from the public official in charge of the construction of the instant building, that there is no defect even if the building was newly constructed on the instant land.

The plaintiff newly constructed the building of this case with trust in the public opinion of the public official in charge. Thus, the defendant's seeking removal of the building of this case goes against the principle of trust protection.

B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. Determination as to whether the instant land is an annexed parking lot of the instant facilities