이행강제금부과처분취소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of 16 and 117 (hereinafter “instant store”) in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).
B. On February 24, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiffs to correct the area of 35 square meters in size in violation of Article 42 of the Building Act on the grounds that the Plaintiffs installed a wood interior with respect to the instant store and damaged landscaping and violated Article 42 of the Building Act. In response, the Plaintiffs were notified of the completion of restoration to the original state of a non-compliant building on March 28, 2014 by voluntarily restoring to the original state.
C. On May 2014, the Defendant confirmed that there was an error on the completion of the restoration of the building to its original state in accordance with the civil petition filed by the other sectional owners of the instant commercial building. On August 22, 2014, the Defendant issued an order again to restore the building to its original state on the ground that the public notice was damaged to the Plaintiffs and violated Articles 35, 42 and 43 of the Building Act (area 17.9 square meters in size in violation), and on September 11, 2014, the Defendant did not comply with the order to promote correction, thereby notifying the Plaintiffs of imposition of the enforcement fine of KRW 439,00 on November 17, 2015.
On March 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 736,200 on the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on March 30, 2015 after correcting the non-violation area into 30 square meters as a result of re-verification of the objection to the calculation of the non-violation area from the Plaintiffs and other sectional owners.
E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on August 12, 2015.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1, Gap 4 through 6, Eul 1 to 5, Eul 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion was voluntarily restored to the original state in accordance with the order of February 24, 2014 and was notified by the Defendant of the completion of restoration to the original state of the non-violationed building, the Defendant’s assertion as the administrative error and the size of the non-violationed area two times each.