건축이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff filed a building report with the Defendant on the land B in South and North Korea (hereinafter “instant land”) as follows:
On November 27, 2013, the Defendant accepted the building report pursuant to Article 14 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 12246, Jan. 14, 2014) and issued the certificate of the building report to the Plaintiff.
As above, the building drawings submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant during the process of accepting the building report shall be as specified in the attached Form "Report Drawings".
(hereinafter referred to as "the first building report") of the above accepted building report. (b)
On June 2, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to take measures, such as removal and reconstruction until July 4, 2016, pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act, on the ground that “the owner obtained permission or report for change before the change is intended to modify matters permitted or reported pursuant to Article 11 or 14 of the Building Act, but the construction was conducted without obtaining permission or report for change, and the construction was conducted without obtaining permission or report for change.”
(hereinafter “instant corrective order”). C.
On February 15, 2017, the Defendant knew on the Plaintiff that “Inasmuch as the instant corrective order was issued, but has not been corrected up to the present date, the Defendant requested for the second correction by March 8, 2017, and if the correction is not made within the given period, the Defendant would impose the enforcement fine.”
Then, on March 9, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the charge for compelling the performance should be imposed KRW 3,832,560 on the instant building on the instant land pursuant to Article 80(1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 16380, Apr. 23, 2019; hereinafter “former Building Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant corrective order.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). [This case’s ground for recognition] does not dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, and Gap.