건축이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the five-story building of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-ro 32 above ground (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. On February 7, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 987,750 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the 5th floor of the instant building to detect the fact that a glass structure with 10m2 (hereinafter “instant structure”) was installed without permission, following relevant procedures, such as a corrective order, etc. against the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1-7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the construction business operator who installed the instant structure.
At the time, the competent court held that the structure of this case is not permitted by the competent authorities.
Therefore, since the instant structure is not installed without permission, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.
B. Determination 1) Article 14(1) of the Building Act provides that the total floor area of the instant structure shall be 85 square meters or less, and the construction of the instant structure shall be reported to the competent authority. However, the fact that the Defendant did not have filed a report on the installation of the instant structure is either disputed among the parties or can be acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings. Thus, it is evident that the instant structure was installed without permission in violation of the Building Act. Meanwhile, in full view of the entries and arguments as to the evidence No. 5, the construction business operator who installed the instant structure, etc. filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the construction cost against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff at the time as a lawsuit defense that the construction business operator lawful the installation of the instant structure to the Plaintiff in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.