원상복구 시정(철거)명령취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On May 4, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of two buildings on one parcel (hereinafter “each building of this case”).
In the entire registration certificate of each building of this case and the general building ledger, the current status of each building of this case is indicated as 13.30 square meters in reinforced concrete structure, smove roof, one-story living facilities, and 40.30 square meters in cement block structure, one-story living facilities, and 40.30 square meters in cement block structure.
The defendant conducted an investigation into the current status of each building of this case on August 29, 2017, and confirmed that each building of this case is extended without permission, as a result of conducting an investigation into the current status of each building of this case on August 29, 2017.
Then, on October 16, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to order the Plaintiff to restore the building to its original state by December 17, 2017, stating the current state of the building in violation of Article 14 of the Building Act, as indicated below, on the ground that each of the instant buildings violated Article 14 of the Building Act.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). (hereinafter “Disposition in this case”), without dispute, the Defendant alleged procedural illegality of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the Disposition in this case’s Disposition in its entirety, and did not specifically indicate where it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 14(1) of the Building Act.
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the duty to present reasons under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.
The former owner and the plaintiff of each building of this case alleged violation of the principle of trust protection have paid the occupation and use fees by obtaining permission by not later than 2012, and also paid property tax. The defendant shall operate a restaurant business for one of the buildings of this case.