beta
부산지방법원 2017.10.26 2017구합21990

위반건축물 시정명령 취소 등 청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 2004, the Plaintiff operated wholesale, retail, and storage business, such as explosives, in Busan, B, and C, with trade names, and owned an explosives storage facility, a container for office, and a container for warehouse.

(hereinafter “instant building”). (b)

On February 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to remove the instant building up to March 22, 2017 on the ground that the instant building was in violation of Article 14 of the Building Act.

The year (the first floor) year of the occurrence of the original new construction (the first floor) of cement block 50.09㎡ 1957m2, 11.04m2 of container 11.04m2,200 m201 of warehouse container 5.98m2011

C. On March 23, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to correct the year when the instant building was constructed as follows and remove the said building by April 24, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant corrective order”). D.

On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff did not remove the said building within the said corrective period, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of KRW 855,080 for non-performance penalty by May 30, 2017, pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) . E.

The Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant corrective order to the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on March 10, 2017, but was dismissed on April 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the corrective order and the disposition of this case are legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Among the instant buildings, powders repositories were constructed in 1957, prior to the enactment of the Building Act, and thus, constitutes legitimate buildings because no provision requiring a building permit or building report exists.

Even if the above storage place was constructed in 1973 as the defendant's assertion.