건축법위반이행강제금부과처분무효확인
1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The developments leading up to the acquisition of the building of this case and the use of the building of this case, etc. 1) Seoul brightness Credit Union is currently designated as a general social welfare center in accordance with the Class I district unit planning of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the 2nd underground floor around 1999 and the 5nd ground floor of the building of this case (hereinafter “the building of this case”).
(2) After the construction of the general building, the primary use on the general building ledger is a social welfare facility (which is a facility for the elderly and children).
6.3. That approval for use has been obtained, and that year;
8. 18. The main purpose of the instant building was indicated and corrected as educational research and welfare facilities, and leased it to the Plaintiff, etc.
2) After that, the Seoul brightness Credit Union had defaulted on June 200 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building under its name on April 26, 2001. 3) The detailed purpose of use of the instant building under the general building ledger is the parking lot, machine room, the second underground floor is the swimming pool, the bath, the water treatment room, the first floor is the welfare space, the assembly room, the office, the second floor is the welfare room, the elderly, the care center for the disabled, the disabled, and the 3 to 5th floor is the water tank room.
4) The Plaintiff used the instant building as a lecture room, laboratory, etc. used by the students of the Vehicle Science University after or at least the time of the lease of the building, and in detail, the first underground floor was a restaurant and laboratory, the first and second floors above the ground, and the third and fifth floors above the ground were used as a dormitory. (B) On April 25, 2008, the Defendant issued a corrective order to restore the building to its original state in accordance with Article 79 of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 19 of the Building Act by using the instant building differently from its use on its building register, and even May 23, 2008, the second corrective order was issued to restore the original state to its original state.
2. The Plaintiff’s instant case around July 23, 2008.