건축이행강제금부과처분취소
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff ordering the revocation below shall be revoked.
The defendant on August 7, 2013.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who leases 4 and 5 floors on the ground B of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) and operates wedding halls.
B. On August 7, 2013, the Defendant imposed KRW 470,977,410 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, without permission, changed the use of the instant 4 and 5 floors, which are “sales facilities” under the Building Act, to “cultural and assembly facilities” and did not comply with the Defendant’s corrective order.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Whether it is illegal to impose a non-performance penalty on the plaintiff merely who is the possessor (1) The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was unlawful even to the plaintiff merely who is the possessor, even though the non-performance penalty is imposed on the owner.
(2) In addition, according to Articles 79(1) and 80(1) of the Building Act, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant building 4 and 5 floors differently from the purpose stipulated in the Building Act and subordinate statutes. Since the Plaintiff may impose a non-performance penalty on the occupant who was subject to corrective measures regarding the illegal building pursuant to Articles 79(1) and 80(1) of the Building Act, the instant disposition imposing a non-performance penalty on the owner of the 4 and 5 floors of the instant building cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with corrective measures against the unauthorized Alteration of Use.
B. Whether the disposition in this case is unlawful against the legislative intent of Article 57 (4) of the Aggregate Buildings Act (1) The plaintiff is able to change the purpose of use because the 4 and 5th floor of the building in this case are installed with a boundary wall and lose its characteristics as a divided store. Thus, the corrective order and the imposition of enforcement fine for the building in this case are made in the legislative intent of Article