건축이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is an owner of a detached house of 58.08 square meters (hereinafter “instant house”) located on the 8th floor of a building on the land outside Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu and 3 lots.
B. On May 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 679,000 for compelling the performance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff without permission extended the instant housing to 10.78 square meters for residential purpose and toilet use (hereinafter “instant violating building”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The Defendant’s defense to the instant disposition was sent by mail to the Plaintiff’s domicile on the Plaintiff’s resident registration, but returned to the Plaintiff’s address unknown, and the period of public notice was served from June 13, 2016 to June 28, 2016, and the instant disposition was publicly announced. Since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit after the lapse of 90 days from the Plaintiff’s filing date, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.
B. Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the party becomes aware of the disposition,” and “the date when the party becomes aware of the existence of the disposition,” which is the starting point of the filing period, refers to the date when the party becomes aware of the fact of the relevant disposition by means of notice, public announcement or other methods, and where a notice is made on the Official Gazette Official Gazette bulletin or daily newspaper, etc. as it is impossible to serve the administrative disposition against a specific person on the grounds that his address is unknown, the other party cannot be deemed to have known of the relevant administrative disposition on the date when
Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14851 Decided April 28, 2006