2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant imposed a non-performance penalty without notifying the plaintiff of the imposition of the non-performance penalty, and the plaintiff failed to receive the notice of imposition of the non-performance penalty.

Therefore, the disposition imposing the enforcement fine of this case is null and void due to a serious defect.

B. In an administrative litigation that claims the invalidity of a judgment disposition as a matter of course and seeks the invalidity confirmation, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for the invalidity of the administrative disposition.

(See) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant issued a corrective order to the effect that, around February 4, 2015, the defendant discovered the violation of the Building Act (unauthorized use) of the building B owned by the plaintiff and ordered the plaintiff to restore the building to the original state by March 3, 2015. The defendant urged the plaintiff to rectify again on March 10, 2015 by April 3, 2015. The defendant sent a notice of imposition of non-performance penalty again to the plaintiff on April 8, 2015; the defendant sent a notice of correction to the plaintiff on May 29, 2015, on the ground that the registered mail No. 11,463,50 won was violated of the Building Act; and the defendant issued a notice of correction to the plaintiff on May 29, 2015, on the ground that the delivery charge was imposed on the plaintiff at KRW 4501,50.

In addition to the above facts of recognition, the notice of pre-announcement of imposition of enforcement fines by April 8, 2015 and the disposition of this case (disposition of enforcement fines by registered mail) are not submitted to the Plaintiff.