A. Imposition of KRW 2,878,720 on May 26, 2016 against Plaintiff A:

B. May 26, 2016

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 112.98 square meters of a single-story house of reinforced concrete structure C in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and 112.98 square meters of a second-story, and the Plaintiff B is the owner of the 110.32 square meters of a single-story reinforced concrete structure of D-ground reinforced concrete structure, and 110.32 square meters of a second

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant house" in entirety). B

In accordance with Articles 11, 79, and 80 of the Building Act, the Defendant made a disposition on each of the orders (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiffs under Articles 11, 79, and 80 of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was divided into three households around 2015, and one household around 2015, the Plaintiff B was divided into five households.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, each of the evidence Nos. 2 through 8, each of the statements Nos. 2 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Article 3-2 subparag. 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that “The extension, demolition, repair, or alteration of the boundary walls between household units in multi-family houses or multi-household houses shall be considered as large-scale repair, which is regulated in relation to the boundary walls between household units in the existing multi-family houses or multi-household houses.” Each of the instant houses by the Plaintiffs is a single house subject to consultation and its boundary walls are extended, and the present form is multiple houses.

Therefore, the extension of the plaintiffs' boundary walls does not constitute substantial repair, and if the above provision applies to the installation of the internal boundary walls of the apartment house subject to consultation beyond the prestigious provision, it would arbitrarily expand the scope of substantial repair and would be contrary to the principle of statutory reservation related to the instigious administrative act.

(2) Since the grounds for the instant disposition are installed as party walls, the enforcement fine should be calculated with the size of the party wall as the area in violation.