시정명령처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. In around 196, the Plaintiff, as a rental business operator, completed the instant apartment in 2002 after obtaining approval for the project plan regarding the new construction of 505 households of Cheongcheon-dong 1517-3, Jung-gu, 1596 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On December 18, 2002, the Plaintiff received a pre-use inspection from the Defendant as a rental house.
B. On December 26, 2009, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s application for conversion for sale in lots for the instant apartment, and accordingly, the Plaintiff sold 79 households out of 505 households of the instant apartment by April 2012.
C. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 1, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for 426 households unsold in the instant apartment, and agreed to comprehensively succeed to the Plaintiff’s status as the rental business operator.
On April 10, 2014, the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case was notified by the defendant of the acceptance of the report on the composition, etc. of the council of occupants' representatives, and requested the plaintiff on April 18, 2014 to transfer the management affairs of the apartment of this case to the housing management operator, who is the housing management operator, but the plaintiff had already transferred the management affairs of the apartment of this case to the non-party company, and rejected it.
E. On July 9, 2014, the Defendant issued an order to take over the management affairs of the instant apartment on the ground that the Plaintiff, as the business entity of the instant apartment, was obligated to take over the management affairs of the instant apartment pursuant to Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff was served on July 15, 2014 by the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is a rental apartment, and the plaintiff is only a rental business operator, and is also a business operator or a management authority under the Housing Act.