The Defendant: (a) issued a disposition imposing a charge for compelling the performance on an amount stated in the separate sheet from May 3, 2001 to January 7, 2013 (hereinafter each disposition is specified in the separate sheet; and (b) each disposition is specified in the separate sheet; and (c) the instant disposition is referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 8 (including Serial Nos. 4, 5, and 8) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff's assertion 1 as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case) shall be made in writing in order to impose enforcement fines. However, the plaintiff was not served with a written disposition on the Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case was null and void because the defects are serious. 2-1 of this case, and the disposition of imposition of enforcement fines or its corrective order was issued on April 12, 2007.

This is against Article 80(5) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 13471 of Aug. 11, 2015), and is thus null and void because it harms the Plaintiff’s trust that the imposition of a non-performance penalty in 2006 would no longer have been made.

(State Claim) Even if the Disposition No. 2-1 is lawful, the Disposition No. 2-2 of this case was conducted without giving a considerable period of time that can be voluntarily performed, and thus, violates Article 79(1) of the former Building Act, and is contrary to the principle of proportionality, and thus, is null and void due to a serious apparent defect.

(Preliminary Claim). It is as specified in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

Judgment

1) Article 80(3) of the former Building Act related to the Act No. 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the instant case provides that “The permission-granting authority shall impose a charge for compelling compliance under paragraph (1).”