이행강제금부과처분취소
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
On November 19, 2014, the Defendant’s enforcement penalty amounting to KRW 50,00,000 against the Plaintiff.
1. Facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for appeal and disposition (based on recognition), the purport of appeal as a whole, including Gap1-7, Eul 1-8, and the purport of appeal as a whole;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of land of 14,334 square meters in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant land”). The land in this case is all the same as Dong located, and if necessary, the parcel number alone is specified.
B. Since around 2012, C changed the form and quality by raising a total of 46,00 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff, including the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, without obtaining permission from the Defendant for the purpose of constructing a camping ground, at least 50 cm high without obtaining permission from the Defendant.
C. On June 5, 2014 and June 23, 2014, the Defendant instructed and urged the Plaintiff to restore a total of 46,000 square meters of land, including the instant land, to its original state, and notified the Plaintiff of the notice that enforcement fines will be imposed on October 17, 2014 (hereinafter “pre-announcement notice”), and imposed enforcement fines of KRW 50,000,000 on November 19, 2014.
(hereinafter “Disposition imposing charges for compelling the performance of this case”). The Defendant’s aforementioned disposition on June 5, 2014 and on June 23, 2014, the period for filing a lawsuit expired without going through the Plaintiff’s appeal procedure. D.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the imposition of the instant enforcement fine, but was dismissed on January 26, 2015.
2. Whether the disposition imposing the enforcement fine of this case is legitimate
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff is limited to 14,334 square meters of land B miscellaneous land, and the Plaintiff was only the owner of the said part and did not participate in the change of the form and quality of the land. However, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the order of restoration and the advance notice of enforcement fines on the whole land that has changed the form and quality of the land.
Therefore, this is illegal because it is erroneous to determine its scope.