A. Imposition of KRW 3,009,680, imposed on Plaintiff A on May 25, 2016;

B. May 26, 2016

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 118.12 square meters of a single-story reinforced concrete structure, the 118.12 square meters of a single-story, the 2nd floor, the 118.12 square meters of a second-story, the Plaintiff B is the owner of the 106.53 square meters of a single-story reinforced concrete structure, the 106.53 square meters of a single-story, the 2nd floor, and the Plaintiff C is the owner of the 77.6 square meters of a single-story reinforced concrete structure, the 2nd floor, the 105.42 square meters of a second-story, the 101.3 square meters of a multi-story reinforced concrete structure, and the Plaintiff D is the owner of the 114.6 square meters of a single-story

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant house" in entirety). B

In accordance with Articles 11, 79, and 80 of the Building Act, the Defendant made a disposition of each of the main dispositions (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiffs on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff made a large-scale repair by extending, dismantling, repairing, or demolishing the boundary wall without permission; (b) the Plaintiff A made a large-scale repair by six households; (c) the Plaintiff B, five households around 2015; and (d) the Plaintiff C, six households around 2013; and (c) the Plaintiff D made a so-called household division by six households around 2015; and (d) the Plaintiff made a disposition of each main disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, each of Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Article 3-2 subparag. 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that “The extension, demolition, repair, or alteration of the boundary walls between household units in multi-family houses or multi-household houses shall be considered as large-scale repair, which is regulated in relation to the boundary walls between household units in the existing multi-family houses or multi-household houses.” Each of the instant houses by the Plaintiffs is a single house subject to consultation and its boundary walls are extended, and the present form is multiple houses.

Therefore, the extension of the plaintiffs' boundary wall does not constitute a large-scale repair, and it does not constitute an internal boundary wall of the consulted single house beyond the prestigious provision.