2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 2008, the Plaintiff obtained approval of factory construction from the Defendant and constructed a new building on the ground B in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) and leased it as warehouse facilities.

B. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant revoked the approval of the said factory construction on the instant building. On the other hand, the Defendant imposed KRW 71,701,350 on September 3, 2012 on the Plaintiff on the ground of “violation of Article 19 of the Building Act (unauthorized use of a factory: Storage Facilities)” and imposed KRW 70,672,840 on the charge for compelling the performance on December 26, 2013.

(Disposition in this case, hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the imposition of enforcement fines by the court below, Gap 1, 4, 5-1 through 7, Eul 1, 3, 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Article 19 of the Plaintiff’s alleged Building Act is premised on the approval for use, and there is no room to apply to the instant building that did not obtain the approval for use.

In addition, changing the use of warehouse to warehouse facilities in a factory is merely a change in the entries in the building register, and is not subject to permission or report.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which was made on a different premise, is unlawful, and is null and void since the defect is serious and clear.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. A person who intends to construct a building as to whether the disposition in this case is legitimate shall obtain permission from the competent authority (Article 11(1) of the Building Act); and a project owner shall obtain permission from the competent authority or report to the competent authority before the change is made to a matter for which a building permit was granted; and where the use of a building, among the matters for which the building permit was granted, is changed to a purpose different from that for which the original permission was granted

(1) Article 16(1) of the Building Act, Article 12(1)1 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act. On the other hand, even in cases where the use of a building, the use of which has been approved after the completion of construction, is changed, the competent authorities shall obtain permission from, or have jurisdiction over