기타이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On the registry, the Plaintiff is an owner of 12.15 square meters and 69.55 square meters and 12.55 square meters and 13,047 square meters and 3,766 square meters and 3,049 square meters and 12.15 square meters and 29.5 square meters and 268 square meters and 13,047 square meters and 268 square meters and 268 square meters and 3,047 square meters and 3,000 square meters and 3,000 square meters and 2,000
B. On November 28, 2012 and December 21, 2012, 2012, the Defendant issued a corrective order and an order to take measures to reinstate pursuant to Article 30 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”) and issued a notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty on March 29, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s lessee violated Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones by constructing a new building without permission or reporting on the land in Gyeyang-gu B and the land in the same Gu E (hereinafter “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones Act”), and issued a notice of imposition of non-performance penalty on March 29, 2013. Of them, the matters pointed out as a violation of the Act on Land in Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-si
(hereinafter referred to as the above office and warehouse are referred to as the “instant building”).
On June 24, 2013, the Defendant imposed enforcement fines of KRW 1,620,00 on 1,620,000 on the instant building on the lessee, but F filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of disposition imposing enforcement fines (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan1810). On December 8, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to revocation of disposition imposing enforcement fines on the instant building on the ground that F is not a new construction offender of the instant building without permission and became final and conclusive.
Upon revocation of the disposition of F on January 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant building; and (b) imposed KRW 1,620,000 on the ground that the instant building was newly built without permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 30 and 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act on January 5, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 8, 20 evidence, Eul 1 to 9 evidence, and arguments.