이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From around 2000, the Plaintiff is operating a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” on the ground of the building B in Ysan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
B. In around 2006, the Plaintiff newly built D & 234.9m2, which was used as a parking lot from the instant restaurant without filing a construction report under Article 14 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant building”).
C. On April 11, 2017, the Defendant issued the first corrective order to remove the instant building by May 17, 2017 pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff newly constructed the instant building in violation of Article 14 of the Building Act, and notified the Plaintiff that the charge for compelling compliance should be imposed pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act if the construction is not corrected within the given period.
On May 18, 2017, the Defendant issued a second corrective order against the Plaintiff to remove the instant building by June 17, 2017, and notified the Plaintiff that the enforcement fine should be imposed if the correction is not made within the given period.
E. On June 20, 2017, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to impose KRW 715,000 for non-performance penalty pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act, and notified the Plaintiff of his/her opinion, if any, to submit his/her opinion by July 10, 2017.
F. On July 13, 2017, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing KRW 715,00 on the Plaintiff for compelling the performance.
(g) The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on September 27, 2017, and the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 30, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful due to the following defects.
1. The plaintiff who has no ground for the disposition has original saws.