과징금 및 이행강제금부과처분취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant building from B, the owner of each building (three buildings connected to each other; hereinafter “instant building”) indicated in paragraphs 3 through 5 of the list of each land listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table Nos. 3 to the same list on the ground, and carries on the repair of automobile.
(B) On May 12, 2016, the ownership of the instant building was transferred to C.
On March 16, 2016 and April 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate the building of this case to the Plaintiff by July 20, 2016 pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 14 of the Building Act by substantial repair and extension of the building of this case without filing a report. On June 17, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate the building of this case by no later than July 20, 2016. On July 25, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff by no later than August 17, 2016.
C. As the Plaintiff did not comply with the foregoing corrective order, on August 22, 2016, the Defendant was urged to impose a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff. On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 3,177,00 for the said portion of large-scale repair (the non-performance penalty of KRW 64.2 square meters) and a non-performance penalty of KRW 2,338,00 for the said extension (the non-performance penalty of KRW 10.5 square meters) on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act.
(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the charge for compelling the performance was imposed on the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff constitutes a penalty surcharge, but the charge for compelling the performance imposed on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act is not a penalty surcharge) is installed with columns and beams due to the risk of collapse, such as equal heat on the roof and floor at the time of leasing the instant building, and exposure to steel bars. The extension part is the instant case.