이행강제금 부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 23, 2007, the Plaintiff owned the 318.24 square meters and 458.64 square meters of the general slive roof factory 1st floor of the general slive roof B on the ground in Nam-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. On December 24, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to restore the instant building to its original state within 30 days from the date of service, on which the first floor parking lot of the instant building was permitted as a pen, and illegally installed a door, and installed stairs on the outer wall. On February 23, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to restore the building to its original state within 20 days from the date of service. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff, stating that the instant building should be restored to its original state within 10 days from the date of service, if it is not restored to its original state within 10 days from the date of service.
C. On July 7, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 16,857,500 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above corrective order, pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The Defendant dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission made a ruling that changed the enforcement fine to 16,391,500 on December 30, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is not an actor who illegally constructed the building of this case, who was awarded a successful bid as it is.
In addition, since all the doors installed in the parking lot are opened in accordance with the defendant's instructions and they cannot be used in the form of electricity, the plaintiff restored the parking lot part to its original state.
(b) A permitting authority shall take measures against a building in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;