이행강제금 부과취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Newly, the part on the 3th page 7-8 line was amended by Act No. 13471, Aug. 11, 2015 and enforced December 12, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “Building Act”).
Part 4 18-20 shall be advanced as follows:
Even if a violation of the Building Act, the initial corrective order, and the previous disposition were issued on or before February 12, 2016, which was the enforcement date of the Building Act, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the corrective order even after receiving a corrective order again from the Defendant even after the enforcement date of the Building Act, and thus, applying the Building Act to the requirements that continue to exist at the time of the enforcement of the Building Act, or the requirements that occurred thereafter, constitutes “the first imposition of enforcement penalty after the enforcement of this Act” under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Building Act. Thus, the measure taken by the Defendant pursuant to the Building Act, which is not the former Building Act, is lawful (On the other hand, the Plaintiff alleged that the instant disposition was unlawful because Article 3 of the Addenda of the Building Act of Gwangju Metropolitan City (S. 1, 2016) violates the Building Act and thus, Article 1 of the Addenda of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Building Ordinance of Gwangju Metropolitan City (S. 1, 2016), and Article 3 of the Addenda of the Building Ordinance of Gwangju Metropolitan City (S Metropolitan City) stipulates Article 4301.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s status.