1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s charges for compelling the performance against the Plaintiff on February 8, 2017 KRW 4,014,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 5, 2010 with respect to the building B (hereinafter “instant building”), the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of “sale by auction” under the Plaintiff’s name on October 5, 2010, and on February 22, 2017, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of “the donation made before December 28, 2016” in the Plaintiff’s name, the Plaintiff’s wife.

B. On September 20, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that the instant building was illegally extended through a field investigation.

C. On September 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order ordering the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of the instant building at the time, to restore the building to its original state (hereinafter “instant corrective order”), and issued a corrective promotion district on November 24, 2016 (hereinafter “instant correction promotion district”), but did not take corrective measures, but issued a pre-announcement of imposition of enforcement fines on January 4, 2017 (hereinafter “pre-announcement of imposition of enforcement fines”), and then imposed KRW 4,014,00 on February 8, 2017 (hereinafter “pre-announcement of imposition”).

(D) On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Standing Committee for Administrative Appeals on the grounds that the appeal was dismissed on June 26, 2017. [Grounds for Recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, and evidence A Nos. 1 and 2 (and serial number) are included.

hereinafter the same shall apply.

(2) Each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 and the purport of the entire pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is unlawful due to procedural defects as set forth below, and thus should be revoked.

1) The Plaintiff’s resident registration address is “Ggu Dong-gu, Daegu.” Nevertheless, while rendering the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, the Defendant served the Plaintiff’s written disposition on D (the wife of the Plaintiff) and its business office, which is not the Plaintiff’s domicile, “Grasan-si B.” Therefore, the above service is inappropriate, and the instant disposition is not effective as it did not arrive at the Plaintiff, the other party to the instant disposition. (2) The instant disposition, which is the ground for the instant disposition,