2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, without filing a construction report, constructed one unit of prefabricated-type neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on each parcel of land outside B and one parcel of land, which is a State-owned land, and on September 14, 2015, the Defendant notified that the instant building should be restored to its original state on the ground that the instant building was constructed without filing a construction report and violated Article 114 of the Building Act.

On April 12, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice of imposition of KRW 9,060,480 for non-performance penalty pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act on the ground that the Defendant failed to comply with the corrective order for the instant building.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of the instant case was lawful, based on the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including various numbers); and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings, is to determine whether the disposition of the instant case is legitimate; and (c) the Plaintiff contributed to the creation of a C Arboretums, which is a cultural and tourism facility within the jurisdiction of the Defendant, for public convenience; and (d) the instant building is being used as part of the said arboretum; (c) the cost to remove the instant building; and (d) the Plaintiff’s economic situation

It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier: (a) the size of the building of this case is significant; (b) the Plaintiff has been refusing to comply with the corrective order more than twice by the Defendant; (c) the period of nonperformance also reaches several years; and (d) the Plaintiff appears to have failed to meet the requirements of Article 80-2 of the Building Act, which provides for mitigation of enforcement fines; and (d) the Plaintiff uses C Arboretums including the building of this case for profit-making purposes, even if all circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff are considered.