이행강제금 부과처분 취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 53,989,640 against the Plaintiff on December 31, 2014 is revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 16, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by winning the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building B (hereinafter “instant building”) in the course of compulsory auction by official auction.
B. On December 9, 2014, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to rectify the violation of the Building Act (pre-locating, extending the area of main stairs to approximately 140 square meters, changing the location of main stairs, and changing the mechanical parking lot to self-stocks) by December 23, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff of the demand for correction and the pre-announcement of imposition of charges for compelling the performance pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act, when failing to comply with the demand by the said deadline, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the submission of a written opinion if there is an objection.
C. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order by the said deadline, and the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 53,989,640 on the Plaintiff a charge for compelling the performance pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion (i.e., the plaintiff did not receive an advance notice of the charge for compelling compliance with the disposition of this case. Since the defendant did not observe the procedure related to the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful.
B. On December 9, 2014, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to comply with the corrective order and set the period for compliance on December 23, 2014. Considering that the Plaintiff was in the position of acquiring ownership of the building of this case and implementing the corrective order only on December 16, 2014, the said period for compliance with the Defendant’s order cannot be deemed to be “a considerable period for compliance with the corrective order” and is unlawful.
Article 28(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall make utmost efforts to implement the corrective order, but the interest has not been able to be able to be able to be able to do so.”