이행강제금부과처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 3rd floor building on the ground B in Seongdong-gu, Sungnam-gu (hereinafter “instant building”). The use of the 297.93 square meters of the instant building is the first class neighborhood living facilities (retail stores), and Samsung ElectronicC leased and used it.
B. 1) On September 29, 2011, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on the ground that the second floor of the instant building was retail store, and that it was used as the office. On November 24, 2011, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on the ground that the second floor of the instant building was issued a notice of correction promotion, the notice of imposition of enforcement fines on March 19, 201, the notice of imposition of enforcement fines on July 24, 2012, and the second notice of imposition of enforcement fines on July 24, 2012. (2) The Defendant confirmed that the corrective order was not served on the Plaintiff, and issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on July 25, 2012, and issued a notice of imposition of enforcement fines on October 26, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff was given a corrective order to restore part of the second floor of the instant building (144 square meters) to its original state to the Plaintiff on the first notice of November 5, 2012012.
4) On January 14, 2013, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 11,575,000 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff used the second floor of the instant building by changing its use to an office, not a retail store, and did not comply with a corrective order under Article 79 of the Building Act.
(c) The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 31, 2013. [The purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as to the facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 9, respectively.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a lessee’s business registration certificate, which is leased as a retail store due to the lessee’s business attitude as a service and retail business, and the lessee’s service is not on-site, but only the sales of parts with telephone orders.