이행강제금부과처분취소
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 is an owner of an unauthorized house located on B’s ground (hereinafter “instant house”).
B. From October 25, 2005 to January 25, 2006, the Defendant issued a corrective order on the ground that it violated the Building Act by extending the housing of this case without obtaining a construction permit from the Plaintiff on three occasions. On July 6, 2006, the Defendant imposed KRW 10,780,000 on the Plaintiff on the charge for compelling the performance.
On December 1, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongnam-do Governor on the imposition of enforcement fines, and the Chungcheongnam-do Governor rendered a ruling to the effect that the enforcement fines should be changed to KRW 5,390,000.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Daejeon District Court seeking revocation of the disposition imposing the charge for compelling compliance as above (2007Guhap971). On June 27, 2007, the above court rendered a judgment revoking the disposition imposing the charge for compelling compliance on the ground that “the Plaintiff, around October 2005, extended 85.17 square meters among the instant housing without obtaining permission from the Defendant. The criteria for calculating the charge for compelling compliance applicable to the instant housing, which is an unauthorized housing, are Article 69-2(1)1 of the Building Act, Article 111(2)1 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 111(2)2 proviso of the Local Tax Act, and the above disposition should be revoked since the Defendant calculates the charge for compelling compliance and is unlawful (hereinafter “the pertinent judgment”). The pertinent judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
From October 11, 2007, the Defendant issued a corrective order and imposition of a non-performance penalty several times on the ground that “the Plaintiff had extended 85.17 square meters of the instant housing without permission (hereinafter “instant extension”) and violated the Building Act.”
E. The defendant is above D.
For the same reason, the Plaintiff issued a corrective order on August 8, 2013 regarding the extension of the instant case, following prior notification on October 25, 2013.