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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Multi-household 401 multi-household housing (multi-household housing in this case, at the following) with the fourth floor of reinforced concrete B on the ground of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The plaintiff acquired the ownership of the above 401 on June 26, 2007 after receiving the successful bid in the Seoul Central District Court C Voluntary Auction procedure.

B. around November 17, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to remove an unauthorized building on August 26, 2015 with respect to the construction of 55 square meters of a light steel framed temporary structure on the rooftop of the instant multi-household building. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant issued a prior notice of imposition that a non-performance penalty will be imposed on KRW 8,277,500 if the Plaintiff fails to comply with the order by November 13, 2015. On November 17, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 8,277,50 (the instant disposition was taken in this case) (the instant disposition in question) on which the Plaintiff would be imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 8,277,500 (301,000 equivalent to the standard market value of the building x 55 square meters x 55.5).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that multi-household housing in the instant case is a old-age building newly built on June 30, 1995, which is not waterproof, and thus, it is virtually impossible to reside in the instant multi-household housing due to the occurrence of a problem, such as 401, which is the part owned by the Plaintiff, and the occurrence of a fluence, etc.

Nevertheless, the multi-household housing in this case cannot appoint less than 10 managers, and due to the in-depth mind of other heads of households, the remuneration for common areas and the cost of repairing are not prepared.

In such a situation, the Plaintiff temporarily constructed a light 401 building on the rooftop for the purpose of waterproofing 401, but the instant disposition against which the Defendant imposed a charge for compelling compliance with the statutory maximum limit without considering such circumstances is unlawful as a disposition deviating from and abusing discretion.

B. The former Building Act and subordinate statutes (amended by Act No. 1354, Jul. 7, 2015)