1. On March 5, 2015, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 195,064,480, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff, KRW 7,502,480.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned a building on the ground of B, C, and 5 lots above, D, E, and two lots below (in the following, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 4, 5 lots above ground buildings in Seoul Jung-gu, Junggu, Seoul, and 2, 3, E, and 2, and 4, respectively).

B. The Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the target 1, 2, and 3 buildings with factory facilities and swimming pool facilities as follows, but leased to F Co., Ltd. (F Co., Ltd.) and allowed F Co., Ltd. to use them as warehouse facilities. After the construction of each of the above buildings, there was no approval for use from the competent authorities, and no building register was made.

The plaintiff was approved to use the target 4 buildings for the purpose of cultural assembly facilities after construction of the new building.

C. On March 5, 2015, the Defendant imposed indemnity on the Plaintiff for the following reasons.

The purport of the whole pleadings and arguments is as follows: (a) the amount of grounds for the actual use of the parcel number subject to permission, which is 1 B factory facilities, warehouse facilities (300 square meters), unauthorized Extension (300 square meters), violation of permitted matters, prior occupancy (1,340 square meters) of 39,49,580 square meters) and 5 lots of land outside C, 114,99,580 square meters; (b) violation of permitted matters; (c) prior occupancy (216 square meters); (d) prior occupancy (216 square meters); (d) prior occupancy (76,785,60 square meters); (d) violation of permitted matters; (e) violation of permitted matters; (e) change of use of storage facilities for cultural assembly facilities (149.72 square meters); and (e) violation of permitted matters (195,064,480 square meters); and (e) violation of Article 76,785,60

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) although the defendant imposed a charge for compelling the performance on the building 1, 2, and 3 on the ground of the unauthorized change of the use and the prior occupancy, it cannot impose a charge for compelling the performance on the building for which the approval for use under Article 22 of the Building Act has not been granted, on the ground of the unauthorized change of the use, and each of the above buildings for which