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

A. On August 19, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased No. 4 from B, the building C (hereinafter “instant facilities”). On October 22, 2010, the Plaintiff jointly purchased B, F, and 240.6 square meters of the instant facilities (hereinafter “instant land”) for the purpose of using the instant facilities as an attached parking lot.

B. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff received a construction report completion certificate from the Defendant to newly construct a building of a size of 65.52 square meters on the 1st floor above the ground of light metal structure (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land, and completed the completion inspection on June 29, 2016.

C. On November 29, 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore the original state pursuant to Article 19-4(1) of the Parking Lot Act on the ground of the change of the use of an attached parking lot without permission.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Gwangju District Court seeking the revocation of the instant disposition (Seoul District Court 2017Guhap10432), and the said court rendered on December 21, 2017, that “the instant disposition seeking restitution of the instant land based on the premise that it is an attached parking lot for the instant facilities, cannot be deemed lawful designation by satisfying the requirements for establishing an attached parking lot in relation to the instant facilities from the beginning of the beginning of the year, and that the instant disposition seeking restitution of the instant land is unlawful.”

The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

E. Around January 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “Inasmuch as the third and fourth floors of the instant facilities were registered as a violating building because an annexed parking lot was not established, it shall take measures to bring an accusation against the Plaintiff, by securing the site of the annexed parking lot and not installing the annexed parking lot.”

F. The Plaintiff failed to secure a new annexed site, and installed an annexed parking lot on the instant land after removing the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1.