건축이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
Pursuant to Articles 80 and 79(1) of the Building Act, the Defendant imposed KRW 4,759,400 on April 6, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 35 of the Building Act by installing cooking facilities on the land building B in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”), which was approved to use multiple houses, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 35 of the Building Act.
(2) Article 19(3) of the Building Act does not require permission or report when changing the purpose of multi-family house into multi-family house pursuant to Article 19(3) of the Building Act, and there is no need to obtain permission or report when changing the purpose of multi-family house into multi-family house, and there is no obligation to request a change in the entries in the building register.
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff violated Article 19 of the Building Act is illegal.
It is as stated in the relevant statutes.
Judgment
According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2, the defendant did not take the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff changed the purpose of use of the building of this case from multi-user houses to multi-family houses, but can be recognized that the disposition of this case was made on the ground that the plaintiff violated Article 35 of the Building Act by installing cooking facilities in multi-family houses where the plaintiff is unable to install cooking facilities. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is
Meanwhile, as long as the building of this case was changed from multiple houses to multi-family houses due to the installation of cooking facilities in the building of this case, it seems that the Defendant also includes the assertion that the Plaintiff cannot impose a duty to maintain and manage the building of this case as multi-family houses with multi-family houses.
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 (including paper numbers) and the whole pleadings, this case.