(a) If a violation of the Building Act is corrected ex post facto, whether it is exempt from the imposition of a fine for negligence under Article 56-2 of the same Act (negative);

(b) Whether a court’s decision on an administrative fine pursuant to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act is unlawful on the ground that the administrative agency did not give an opportunity to state its opinion pursuant to Article 103 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act before imposing an administrative fine pursuant to Article 5

A. The administrative fine under Article 56-2 of the Building Act is a sanction against a violation of an order of correction by an administrative agency. Thus, if such violation is committed, it shall be subject to an administrative fine, and it shall not naturally deviate from the imposition of an administrative fine by correcting it thereafter.

B. The court's trial on a fine for negligence pursuant to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act is not an administrative litigation procedure to judge whether or not the disposition of the fine for negligence imposed by the administrative agency, which is the imposing authority, is justifiable, and so long as the court listens to the party's statement in accordance with the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act and renders a trial on a fine for negligence in accordance with legitimate procedures, the court's trial on the fine for negligence cannot be asserted as unlawful on the ground that the imposing authority did not give an opportunity

Article 56-2 of the Building Act, Article 103 of the Building Act, Article 277 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act

Egresponding punishment

Seoul Central District Court Order 90Ra316 Dated July 28, 1990

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Since a fine for negligence under Article 56-2 of the Building Act is a sanction against a violation of an administrative authority's corrective order, if such violation is committed, it shall be subject to the imposition of an administrative fine, and it shall not naturally deviate from the imposition of an administrative fine by correcting it thereafter.

Upon examining the record, the re-appellant's failure to comply with the order of correction from the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul on May 8, 1989 to May 13, 198 on the construction violation of this case, and the head of Gangseo-gu Office imposed a fine for negligence on January 24, 1990. Thus, even if the re-appellant corrected the violation on January 30, 199, such as the theory of the lawsuit, even if the re-appellant corrected the violation on January 30, 1990, it cannot be said that it interfere with the imposition of the fine for negligence of this case as a

With respect to the second ground:

According to Article 56-2 (4) and (5) of the Building Act, if a person who is dissatisfied with the disposition of a fine for negligence under paragraphs (1) and (2), files an objection, the imposing authority shall notify the competent court thereof, and the competent court so notified shall proceed to a trial of a fine for negligence in accordance with the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act. Accordingly, the procedure of a trial of a fine for negligence in accordance with the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act is not an administrative litigation procedure to judge whether the administrative agency, which is the imposing authority, has imposed the fine for negligence under the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, hear the statement of the party in accordance with the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act and hold a trial of a fine for negligence in accordance with legitimate procedures, so long as the court has heard the statement

In light of the record, in the first instance court's trial of the administrative fine of this case, the procedure of the judgment of the administrative fine of this case shall not be deemed to have been erroneous, and the procedure of the judgment of the administrative fine of this case is not about the procedure of the administrative fine of this case, but about the case of the lawsuit of this case not about the procedure of the administrative fine of this case, but about the procedure of the hearing under Article 42-3 of the Building Act (the re-appeal of Article 42 (3) of the Grounds for Re-

On the third ground for appeal

Examining the record, it is not recognized that the court below was illegal to recognize that the entrance of the underground parking lot of the building of this case was installed at a level of 1.5 meters lower than the criteria for permission so that vehicles can not enter, and that the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ordered the correction thereof. Therefore, the

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)