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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. 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, which was approved to use multiple houses (hereinafter “instant building”). In accordance with Articles 80 and 79(1) of the Building Act, the Defendant imposed the charge for compelling the performance on the Plaintiff on April 6, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

In accordance with the preparatory brief dated December 12, 2017 during the course of the instant lawsuit, the provision that the Plaintiff installed and violated the cooking facilities in the instant building is not Article 35 of the Building Act, but Article 2(2) of the Building Act, Article 3-5 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

1.(b)

2) The instant disposition was modified by making a statement to the effect that it was the ground for the instant disposition. [No dispute over the grounds for recognition, or substantial facts with this court, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, whether the instant disposition

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) installed a cooking facility in the instant building, which is a multi-user house, and changed the multi-unit house into a multi-unit house. However, under Article 19(3) of the Building Act, it is unnecessary to obtain permission or report when changing the purpose of use of multi-unit house into a multi-unit house, and there is no need to apply for alteration of the entries in the building ledger. Thus, the instant building was changed into a multi-unit house by the Plaintiff’s installing a cooking facility. Thus, the Plaintiff’s act is changed into a multi-unit house

1.(b)

2) or Article 35 of the Building Act cannot be deemed to have violated any provision of the grounds for disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful, regardless of the relevant grounds for disposition. 2) The Defendant’s instant building cannot be deemed to have changed the purpose of its use into a multi-family house as it fails to meet the standards for concrete slab thickness between the annexed parking lot and floors required to the multi-family house. Article 2(2) of the Building Act and Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.