독촉처분등 취소 청구
1. The Defendant’s demand for payment of KRW 21,240,530 for enforcement fines against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2018 and the pre-announcement of seizure.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. In order to conduct a business of constructing and selling a detached housing complex, the Plaintiff constructed a detached housing complex (a total of seven buildings) in Jeju-si around 2016 and obtained approval for use.
B. On July 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a prior notice of corrective order to the effect that “The building at Jeju (hereinafter “instant building”) violated Article 22 of the Building Act, and thus, would be subject to an administrative disposition pursuant to Article 79 of the same Act” (hereinafter “prior notice of this case”).
The main contents of the above prior notice are as follows:
A prior notice of administrative disposition
1. Title of the scheduled disposition [referring to an administrative disposition, such as a building in violation] Article 79 of the Building Act - a corrective order or accusation against a non-violation building voluntarily, a restriction on the business of a non-violation building, etc., a non-violation building, the imposition of a non-performance penalty, and a violation owner of a violation entered in the building ledger: Location of the plaintiff: A violation against neighboring sites and occupation of roads without
3. Measures against a violation of Article 22 of the Building Act, which constitutes the cause of disposal, and Article 79 of the Building Act.
4. Administrative dispositions (Corrective orders, etc.), such as details and buildings intended to be disposed of.
5. Legal basis violation law: The provisions applicable under Article 22 of the Building Act (approval for Use of Building): the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on October 8, 2016, to the effect that “the Plaintiff, on November 11, 2016, issued a voluntary demand for correction of the current status of the building in violation of the attached Form, as it did not take any measure despite the prior notice of the instant case, and thus, voluntarily removed, etc. by November 11, 2016 (hereinafter “instant corrective order”).
(3) On May 2017, the Defendant: (a) the instant building was an illegal building in violation of Article 22 of the Building Act; and (b) up to December 16, 2016, pursuant to Article 79 of the same Act.