건축이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff’s content of the building in the register of the family heading C located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, is “1 story 49.59 square meters, 2 stories, 49.59 square meters, and 49.59 square meters.”
(hereinafter “instant building”) is the owner who purchased the instant building and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 15, 2014.
B. On February 13, 2018, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant unauthorized extension by March 23, 2018, where it confirmed that the portion of the instant building was illegally extended on the rooftop as follows (hereinafter “instant unauthorized extension”).
The area of violation of structural use, such as the owner of the building located in the violation, shall be 43.23 square meters of Plaintiff Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government rooftop B.
C. On April 12, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the portion of the instant unauthorized extension should be voluntarily removed by May 18, 2018, and that the Defendant would impose KRW 5,946,280 for non-compliance with the order of correction and the charge of compelling compliance.
On July 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 5,946,280 for compelling the performance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff, on July 2, 2018, when the Plaintiff failed to voluntarily remove the portion of the instant unauthorized extension even though the Plaintiff was notified of the second corrective order and the imposition of charges for compelling the performance.
E. On September 28, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed the instant lawsuit.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 13, the purport of the whole of the pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 had already been made on the instant building at the time when the Plaintiff purchased the instant building.