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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On April 2002, the Plaintiff removed, without filing a report on the removal of a building, a wooden house 24.36 square meters on the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground B’s ground, and constructed a building of 33.91 square meters of light steel structure on that ground without any construction permit (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 2, 2002 and July 30, 2002, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to suspend the construction of the above construction, but the Plaintiff did not remove the instant building. On March 7, 2003, the Defendant issued a report to the Defendant on the construction of a temporary building for the 1st floor, 33.91 square meters of the total floor area of the instant building, product camping site, and for the use thereof. On March 8, 2003, the general building register on the 24.36 square meters of the above wooden Housing was cancelled on the ground that the relevant building was removed.

C. However, as a result of the inspection conducted by the Defendant in accordance with the temporary building inspection plan in 2005, the Plaintiff used the instant building as the temporary office of a church, not for the product-free shop, unlike the details of the report, and the Defendant, on September 22, 2005 and November 11, 2005, ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective measures against the violation.

Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff did not correct the above violation, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of the charge for compelling the performance on December 5, 2005, and issued a disposition imposing the charge for compelling the performance amounting to KRW 9,884,760 on December 27, 2005.

(The amount of enforcement penalty was reduced to KRW 3.3 million upon the Plaintiff’s objection. Meanwhile, the retention period of the instant building was expired on September 30, 2005.

As the Plaintiff did not continuously correct the above violation, on October 20, 2006, the Defendant made a request for correction of the violation to the Plaintiff on November 17, 2006, and issued a notice of imposition of enforcement fines of KRW 4,645,670 on November 17, 2006 (i.e., standard market price of KRW 274,000 x 33.91 square meters x 0.5 square meters x 0.5 x imposition of enforcement fines of KRW 4,465,670 on December 29, 206.

E. Despite the imposition of the above charge for compelling the performance, the Plaintiff did not correct the above violation.