건축물대장위반건축물기재무효확인의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 22, 2003, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant for the use of the first floor, the fourth floor, the detached house, and the neighborhood living facilities located in Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant, and around that time, up to June 2004, the Plaintiff installed additional boundary walls and doors, etc. on the building 2, 3, and the fourth floor inside and outside of the instant building, each of which is composed of 1 household units on the building ledger, and changed the second floor and the fourth floor to 2 household units (hereinafter “instant household division”). On December 22, 2003, the Plaintiff installed additional boundary walls and doors, etc. on each of 3, and the fourth floor to 3, and the fourth floor to 4, each of which was changed to 2,00 household units (hereinafter “instant extension”).
B. On January 8, 2004 and March 23, 2004, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696, Nov. 8, 2005; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the instant household division act and the instant extension act violate Article 9 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696, Nov. 8, 2005; hereinafter the same), and on May 3, 2004, upon the Plaintiff’s failure to correct the violation, notified the Defendant to indicate that the instant building was illegal in the building ledger when imposing a charge for compelling the performance on the instant household division, pursuant to Article 83(1) of the former Building Act.
C. On May 4, 2004, the Defendant entered “illegal buildings (the imposition of charges for compelling the performance)” in the item column of the building ledger concerning the instant building. The Plaintiff paid the charges for compelling the performance stated in the foregoing Paragraph (b) on June 18, 2004.
Meanwhile, on May 24, 2012 and June 29, 2012, the Defendant issued a corrective order ordering the Plaintiff to restore the instant household division to its original state on two occasions, and issued the instant building.