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

A. On November 30, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) from the Plaintiff on November 30, 2004, 548 square meters in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) the building on its ground [1.5 square meters in an early single-story, 91.5 square meters in an independent house; (b) 63.19 square meters in an early single-story community facilities (a religious assembly hall); (c) 12 square meters in an neighborhood living facility (a religious assembly hall); and (d) 5.83 square meters in an early single-story (a single-story warehouse) in total

[1] On January 4, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future.

B. The Defendant confirmed the fact that the instant building was newly built without permission (hereinafter “the instant unauthorized construction area”), and ordered the Plaintiff to restore the building to its original state on January 10 and February 12, 2019.

The Defendant did not comply with the above corrective order within the corrective period stipulated in the above corrective order. On March 13, 2019, the Defendant issued a notice of imposition of enforcement fines to the Plaintiff, and imposed enforcement fines of KRW 2,734,000 on April 17, 2019 based on Article 80 of the Building Act.

C. On October 24, 2019, the Defendant confirmed that among the instant buildings during the instant lawsuit pending, the size of the part ③ among the instant buildings was 58 square meters, and imposed charges for compelling compliance by changing the area of illegally constructed construction to KRW 2,637,000 on the Plaintiff on the premise that the area of illegally constructed construction is 167.38 square meters, as shown in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 8 and Eul evidence 1 to 3, 6 through 8 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Of the instant building, ①, and ② the instant building was constructed between 1972 and 1979, and there was no separate restriction provision under the Building Act at the time, and thus, it is not a non-violation building. 2) Of the instant building, the instant building, ①, and ②, the instant building, which was introduced for the first time by the enforcement fine system, were legalized on May 31, 191.