이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is operating a C pharmacy (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) in a state where two horizontal signboards and four vertical signboards (hereinafter “instant signboards”) are installed on the first floor of the building located in Busan Jung-gu. Busan Jung-gu.
B. On October 2010, the Defendant conducted an investigation into illegal outdoor advertisements in a specific zone D, and confirmed that four vertical signboards of the Plaintiff were installed in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act, and notified the Plaintiff of a corrective order on August 13, 2014 and September 15, 2014 and a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff on October 15, 2014, and issued a notice of imposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On November 26, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of imposition of non-performance penalty of KRW 1,425,000 (the calculation details are the same as indicated below) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
Illegal advertisements 40.6 x 3.2 x 0.9 x 2 x 3.2 x 9.6 x 9.5 times general electricity (1.5 times) of 2 9.6 x 1.5 times = 1,425,00 won
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 21, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In order to revitalize the conventional market, around 2007, the Defendant asserted that the instant pharmacy was located, and recommended the Plaintiff to put up a pole in lieu of removing exposed signboards. The Plaintiff, upon agreement with F at the time of the meeting of the shopping mall, received KRW 100,000 as a subsidy for the replacement of the signboard from the said conference, and replaced the Plaintiff with the signboard at the present time, bringing the remainder of the cost of KRW 10,000,000.
However, the defendant asserts that no measure should be taken for about three years after the establishment of the above signboard, and that the signboard of this case should be corrected on the ground that it is illegal advertisements from five years ago.