건축이행강제금부과처분취소
1. On February 20, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 9,479,000 on the Plaintiff is invalid.
1. After August 26, 2004, the Plaintiff was the owner of the building A located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) and the Defendant issued each enforcement fine of KRW 13 square meters and KRW 20 square meters for non-performance penalty of KRW 2,412,00 on January 5, 2010, KRW 376,00 on December 16, 201, KRW 2,382,00 on December 16, 201, KRW 382,00 on December 2, 201, and KRW 309,000 on December 7, 2012 (hereinafter “each enforcement fine of this case”) to the Plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties to the instant disposition, or it is recognized that the charges for non-performance penalty of KRW 2,309,00 on February 20, 2014 were included in the evidence No. 3 (hereinafter the same).
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Prior to the facts of recognition, the following facts are recognized in addition to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 13, Eul evidence, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments in each of the evidences mentioned above.
(1) The Defendant discovered, on the third floor of the instant building in 2001, that the plate structure 20 square meters, and around 2003, 13 square meters in the 1st floor of the KON/ Panel Structure was expanded for each warehouse, and began to impose enforcement fines (hereinafter “previous enforcement fines”) on the Plaintiff. Of them, the Defendant seized each enforcement fines on the instant building on August 1, 2008, “1,060,000 square meters (20 square meters)”, “1,00,000 square meters (12 square meters in the 2006 square meters in the 2006 square meters in the 2007 square meters in the 1,513,000 square meters in the 207 square meters in the 2007 square meters in the 2007 square meters in the 208.”
(2) On March 11, 2009, the Plaintiff sent a public notice to the Defendant requesting the cancellation of the attachment of the instant building on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s person in charge of the Defendant’s side inspected the site of extension without permission; (b) the location of the correction was specified; and (c) the removal was completed and the photograph was sent.
(3) The Defendant confirmed whether the charge for compelling compliance was corrected at the time of collecting the charge for compelling compliance. On August 27, 2009, the Defendant cancelled the attachment on the ground that the amount of KRW 5,140,000 (one total of four cases) with respect to the attachment of the instant building was fully paid by the Plaintiff, and cancelled the attachment. < Amended by Act No. 9538, Aug.