beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.05.02 2013구단8441

이행강제금부과처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff leased from the owner B a 81.8 square meters of underground floor and a 147.9 square meters of ground surface (for the purpose: general restaurants; hereinafter “instant building”) located in Gangdong-gu, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and the D parking lot 200 square meters attached thereto; (a) changed the use of the instant building without permission for change of the purpose of use and change of the form and quality; (b) changed the form and quality of the instant building into “sknin golf practice range” without permission; and (c) changed the 100 square meters of land from E before 804 square meters into “F”; (d) commenced the business of driving practice in screen with the trade name of “F”; and (e) used the 300 square meters of land as a parking lot of the said D parking lot (i.e., 100 square meters of illegal changes in the form and quality as above).

B. The Defendant issued the first corrective order to voluntarily correct the Plaintiff by December 1, 2010, on the ground that the use of the instant building 229.7 square meters and the parking lot 300 square meters has been altered without permission, and that the use of the instant building and the parking lot were altered in form and quality. ② The Defendant issued the second corrective order to voluntarily correct the Plaintiff by December 30, 201; ② the Plaintiff did not correct it within the first period; ② on January 19, 2011, again issued the second corrective order to correct again by February 11, 2011; ③ the Plaintiff did not correct it within the second period; ③ on February 21, 2011, again issued the third corrective order to correct it by March 7, 201; ④ the Plaintiff did not correct it within the third period; ④ on May 20, 2011, the Plaintiff did not rectify it again within the first period; ⑤ on May 14, 2011, the Plaintiff did not rectify it again within the first period.

C. Around May 2012, the Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation into the site again; and (b) based on the fact that the area of the portion illegally altered in the form and quality was increased to 120 square meters with a 804 square meters of a 804 square meters of a building prior to E; and (c) on the ground that the use of a 229.7 square meters of the instant building and a 3