이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff extended a reinforced concrete structure housing 48.6 square meters on the first floor of Daejeon Metropolitan City Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, and the Plaintiff did not undergo reporting or permission procedures with respect to the said extension.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant shall apply two times from December 13, 2013 to February 18, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
On April 8, 2014, a notice of prior notice of disposition was sent to the Plaintiff, stating that the Plaintiff would impose KRW 13,146,000 for non-performance penalty on the part of the extension stated in the port shall be restored to its original state, and the subsequent notice was sent to the Plaintiff.
5. 20. Prior notice to the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff an official document stating that the charge for compelling compliance will be imposed KRW 6,573,00, as there is an error in the calculation of the charge for compelling compliance, and the same year.
6. On October 10, 200, the Plaintiff imposed a disposition imposing KRW 6,573,000 for compelling the performance (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with this Court 2014Guhap3015, and the said lawsuit was deemed to have been withdrawn on May 21, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant’s determination as to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit is a defense to the effect that the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, and thus, is unlawful. As such, the main text of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “A revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition, etc.,” and according to the facts found earlier, the Plaintiff appears to have known that the instant disposition was issued on June 24, 2014 when the Plaintiff filed the revocation lawsuit of the instant disposition, and that the instant lawsuit was filed on June 3, 2015 when the lapse of 90 days from June 24, 2014 when the said period for filing the lawsuit was expired. As such, the instant lawsuit is an unlawful lawsuit with the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, this point out by the Defendant.