The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building B located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

Nonparty C leased the instant building from the Plaintiff and operated the restaurant.

B. On January 3, 2020, the Defendant: (a) controlled the instant building without permission; and (b) on the same day, notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing violation (unauthorized) control.

C. On January 13, 2020, the Defendant issued a corrective order to order the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove and restore the instant building to its original state by February 12, 2020, which is confirmed to be a board roof on the first floor of the instant building, and a building with the steel pole 50.15 square meters of a building with the steel pole (unpermitted).

On the other hand, upon the Plaintiff’s request for reinspection, the Defendant confirmed that the area of the building in violation of the above (unauthorized) is 31.46 square meters, and urged the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove and restore the building to its original state by March 3, 2020 with respect to the first floor board roof of the instant building, the steel pole 31.46 square meters (hereinafter “the instant unauthorized building”) by February 12, 2020.

E. On March 5, 2020, the Plaintiff did not comply with the above corrective promotion district, and the Defendant issued a prior notice to the effect that if the Plaintiff did not rectify any violation, such as removal, etc. by March 25, 2020, it would impose a charge for compelling construction performance. However, on March 26, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a charge for compelling construction performance amounting to KRW 9,934,280 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-6, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked for the following reasons.

1. Since the building without permission of this case was not the plaintiff but the lessee constructed according to the business needs, it is also the subject of management as the lessee's ownership.