이행강제금부과처분취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's new or repeated argument, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. The portion added by this court
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) although the court has to impose only a charge for compelling the performance of the building in this case, and (b) a charge for compelling the performance of the building in cooking facilities (32 square meters) which are “the part having altered the purpose of use” pursuant to attached Table 115-2 and attached Table 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, it is unlawful for the Defendant to impose a charge for compelling the performance on the whole area of the building in this case except for parking lots and rooftops; and (c) the type of the building falling under any subparagraph of Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act is as listed in attached Table 1.
[Attachment 1] Types of Buildings by Use (Related to Article 3-5)
1. Single houses;
2. Apartment houses;
3. Class I neighborhood living facilities (the total floor area used for the relevant purpose, such as food, is less than the floor area);
4. Class II neighborhood living facilities (the total floor area used for the relevant purpose, such as a performance hall).
1. The term "floor used for the relevant purpose" in subparagraphs 3 and 4 means the area calculated by adding the area of common areas (referring to the area of corridor, stairs, toilets, etc.) to the area of common areas to the area actually used, excluding the area of annexed parking lots;
According to the above, it is illegal that the defendant calculated the charge for compelling execution including the section for common use, although it is not applied to multi-family houses such as the building of this case, which is limited to Class 1 and Class 2 neighborhood living facilities, in calculating the charge for compelling execution, even though it is not applied to multi-family houses such as the building of this case.