이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 1,620,000 on the Plaintiff on June 24, 2013 is revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 21, 2005, the Plaintiff leased the land and its ground ment block C, livestock pens, and the same-gu D ground manager, and livestock pens around that time, and operated the classical world around that time.
B. Around November 28, 2012 and around December 21, 2012, the Defendant issued a corrective order and a disposition to reinstate a building in accordance with Article 30 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Development Restriction Zones”) on the ground that the owner and occupant, including the Plaintiff, were in violation of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Development Restriction Zones”).
The Plaintiff’s act of violating the Plaintiff’s order was an unauthorized extension of 40 square meters in cement block, and an unauthorized extension of 80 square meters in light of light metal and steel framed storage facilities.
(hereinafter referred to as the above office and warehouse are referred to as the “instant building”).
As the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above corrective order, on June 24, 2013, the Defendant imposed a charge for compelling compliance under Articles 30 and 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of the Plaintiff’s unauthorized extension of the instant building on June 24, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) [based on recognition], without dispute, each entry in Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the previous purport of the pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion did not have constructed the building of this case without permission, and merely used the building of this case which had been constructed since October 2003, which had been leased from around October 2003, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful since there was no ground for disposition.
(b) as shown in the attached disposition statutes of the relevant statutes;
C. According to the above evidence and evidence No. 13, the following circumstances are revealed.
① On April 21, 2005, the Plaintiff is a land, building, and its ground in Gyeyang-gu, Soyang-gu.