건축이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 22,085,00 on July 10, 2013 exceeds KRW 21,482,00 among the disposition imposing a charge for compelling compliance imposed by the Plaintiff A.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 10, 2013, the Defendant imposed a enforcement fine of KRW 5,496,000 on the charge of compelling compliance, and KRW 22,085,000 on the charge of compelling compliance, on the premise that it is a building in 2011 with respect to KRW 1-2,00 square meters for cement bricks toilet (hereinafter “building No. 1-2”) constructed without permission within a development-restricted zone, on the premise that it is a building in 2011, on the charge of compelling compliance, 2,620,00 won for compelling compliance, and KRW 61 square meters for a wooden business site (hereinafter “building No. 1-3”) under the premise that it is a building in 2011.
(hereinafter “instant No. 1 Disposition”). (b)
On July 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) premised on the premise that Plaintiff B was a building in 2012 with respect to charges for compelling compliance; (b) KRW 13,162,500 for compelling compliance; and (c) KRW 70,00 for the place of his/her business in his/her sand position panel (hereinafter “building No. 2-2”); and (d) KRW 11,690,000 for compelling compliance, and KRW 16,00 for his/her sand position panel office (hereinafter “building No. 2-3”) under the premise that the building is a building in 2011, the Defendant imposed charges for compelling compliance; (b) KRW 2,672,00 for compelling compliance; and (c) KRW 50,00 for the place of his/her business in his/her position position panel (hereinafter “building No. 2-4”) on the premise that the building is a building in 2011.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 2”). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition, A-1, 1-2, 5-1, 5-2
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. Each of the instant buildings asserted by the Plaintiffs was constructed between 1998 and 2010, and each of the instant dispositions that imposed charges for compelling the performance calculated without applying the residual value rate calculated by the number of years elapsed.
Furthermore, there are cases where the illegal buildings are not controlled among neighboring illegal buildings.