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

A. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff was granted a building permit with the content of a multi-household house with five stories above ground on the land outside Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and with the content of a 57.04 square meters portion underground from the Defendant’s underground from January 8, 2015, which is a studio (the passage through which distribution lines and pipes pass), and the remainder of 109.48 square meters, based on the basic floor (the basis of a building)

B. From January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff started construction. In order to use underground parts as residential facilities, construction of internal materials, etc. and installation of a opening room of the entrance of two entrances, etc., unlike the original Defendant’s permission, the Plaintiff carried out construction differently from the original Defendant’s permission. Furthermore, before obtaining approval for use from the Defendant, the Plaintiff occupied some households.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to suspend construction on October 15, 2015, and issued a corrective order on the part of the violation of the construction permit. On December 11, 2015, the Defendant notified the imposition of a non-performance penalty and sought correction for the part of the violation of the re-building permit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff restored part of the underground part to the skin.

E. However, on January 14, 2016, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing charges for compelling compliance (i.e., partial KRW 37,715,860 (ii) partial KRW 2,383,520) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that ① among underground parts, the size of 109.48 square meters, which ought to be constructed as the original basic story, was not corrected in accordance with the construction permit, and ② the eight households occupied prior to the approval for use.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, at the request of the public official in charge of the Defendant’s affiliation, installed steel bars in the entire underground section and obstructed all sides by concrete, thereby implementing the Defendant’s corrective order and corrective promotional measures.

Even if such can not be seen, the plaintiff's corrective order and the defendant.