이행강제금부과처분무효 확인의 소
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 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a report on construction of a temporary building (hereinafter “instant report”) with the purport of constructing a temporary building on the said land in the name of the non-party SM Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SM Development”), the owner of the land of the non-party 161-1 (hereinafter “SM development”), located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the Defendant, and subsequently newly constructed a temporary building (hereinafter “instant temporary building”).
B. On March 2, 2016, the Defendant issued a “non-provisional notice on the report on the construction of a temporary structure” (hereinafter “instant refusal”) to the EM Development on the following grounds.
In order to receive a report on the construction of a temporary building by a sample house for exhibition under Article 15(5)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act or others similar thereto, it is stipulated that the finishing materials and furniture used in the inside of a model house under Article 38-4(1) of the Housing Act shall be constructed and installed as the same as the contents of the approval of the project plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act, but the subject of the report on the construction of a temporary building has not obtained the approval of the construction project plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act, so it is difficult to construct a temporary building for the recruitment of local housing association members.
On March 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order for the instant temporary building constructed without permission in violation of Article 20 of the Building Act to EM Development to voluntarily correct the violation until April 8, 2016. On March 9, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order for the same content to the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, on March 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the rejection of repair in the instant case, which served as the basis for the said corrective order under the name of SM Development, but the Defendant rejected the foregoing objection against MM development on March 17, 2016.