1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Article 601 of the 601st floor of the 2nd floor of the Suwon-si B building and Article 602 of the same building (hereinafter “instant building”) are the buildings owned by the Plaintiff, the registration of ownership transfer of which was completed on October 31, 2003.

B. On November 201, the Defendant confirmed that a total of 111.216 square meters (referring to 9 square meters, 80.256 square meters, 21.96 square meters, each of the instant buildings) among the instant buildings had been illegally expanded into a light-weight steel structure. On November 12, 201 and January 4, 201, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective measures and demand corrective measures against the violating buildings.

C. On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to extend the deadline for correction until February 28, 2013, and the Defendant again issued a corrective promotion order on February 8, 2013, and notified the Defendant of the notice of imposition of KRW 18,684,00 for enforcement fine on March 18, 2013.

On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted photographs, etc. while removing illegally extended parts. On March 22, 2013, as a result of re-verification on March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff confirmed that the previous part of the violation was partially removed and that the total area of 112.656 square meters (each 9 square meters, 80.256 square meters, 23.4 square meters, and each 85 square meters of floor area is less than 85 square meters) was illegally extended, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of the imposition of KRW 22,086,00 for the new violation building at that time.

E. On April 19, 2013, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 22,086,00 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [The grounds for recognition] does not dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and Eul evidence 1 through 9 are as shown in the separate sheet.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant violating building was installed by the former lessee (the Plaintiff leased the instant building on August 23, 2004, August 23, 2006, and May 17, 2012), and the lessee merely maintained and used the instant building by little amount.