건축법위반에따른강제이행금취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff is the owner of a building on the ground (the second floor, the first floor, the second floor, the 19.8 square meters, 19.8 square meters, 2nd floor, 19.8 square meters; hereinafter “first building”) in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant site”). The Plaintiff was immediately subject to a disposition of imposition of enforcement fines (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of KRW 5,310,000 on January 30, 201 after receiving a corrective order from the Defendant with respect to an unauthorized building newly constructed next thereto (a neighboring residential facilities, the 43 square meters, and the above lawful building; hereinafter “second building”).
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion acquired the ownership of the building No. 1 on July 17, 2008, and the second building existed at that time, and paid KRW 400,000 per month to D owner of the entire land as usage fees. The plaintiff did not construct the building No. 2 without permission and only used it as a tenant, and thus it cannot be removed in the manner of the plaintiff's mind. Thus, the disposition of this case is unfair.
B. Determination 1 related legal principles and Articles 79 and 80 of the Building Act at the issue of this case provide that a corrective order and a non-performance penalty shall be imposed on the owner, contractor, field manager, manager, or occupant of a non-violationed building.
Therefore, in principle, the person subject to enforcement fines has the legitimate authority to implement corrective measures in accordance with the corrective order, and is obligated to comply with the corrective order.
In addition, the issue of whether there is a cause attributable to the violation of the Building Act is not a problem. Therefore, even if the transferee of the building did not commit such violation, he/she is obligated to comply with the corrective order, and if he/she did not comply with it, it is subject to the charge
Ultimately, the issue of this case is that of the second building.