건축법위반에따른강제이행금취소
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. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 17, 2008, the Plaintiff is a person who acquired the ownership of a building on the ground (the second floor of the steel-rein concrete slab roof, the 19.8 square meters for the first floor, the 19.8 square meters for the second floor, the 19.8 square meters for the second floor, the 19.8 square meters for the second floor, and the 19.8 square meters for the second floor (hereinafter “first building”).
B. On the ground of the instant site where an unauthorized building exists, in addition to the building No. 1, there exists an unauthorized building (i.e., cooking, neighborhood living facilities, 43 square meters; hereinafter “second building”). The said building is being used as a restaurant in combination with the first building.
C. On October 24, 2014 and November 27, 2014 of the same year, the Defendant issued an order to remove the building No. 2 within a period prescribed under Article 79(1) of the Building Act on the ground that it is an illegal building, and issued a corrective order to impose a charge for compelling compliance when it does not correct within the said period. On December 29, 2014, the Defendant issued an advance order to ensure that the Plaintiff would impose a charge for compelling compliance KRW 6,536,00 on the charge for compelling compliance. 2) After that, the Plaintiff’s objection procedure against the above corrective order and the prior order, the Defendant again issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on October 13, 2017, on the ground that the building No. 2 was an illegal building within a period prescribed by Article 79(1) of the Building Act, and issued a corrective order to the effect that it will not be corrected within the said period.
3) On December 14, 2017, the Defendant, who did not comply with the said corrective order, filed a prior complaint with the Plaintiff for the imposition of charges for compelling compliance. On January 30, 2018, the Defendant imposed KRW 5,310,000 for compelling compliance on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order under Article 79 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
(ii) [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 6, and 8 (provisional number).