1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 176 square meters of land B in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant imposed KRW 15,065,00 on the Plaintiff on March 3, 2014 following a corrective order to reinstate the instant building on the ground that the Plaintiff was constructing the instant building in violation of Article 11 of the Building Act.

B. Since the Defendant did not remove the instant building even thereafter, on September 30, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order again to restore the Plaintiff to its original state, and issued a disposition imposing KRW 16,394,000 for enforcement fines (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on February 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of various circumstances, the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant enforcement fine is difficult in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff is living in the instant building that is economically difficult for his/her spouse and five children; (b) the recipients of livelihood benefits, medical benefits, etc. are recipients of disability prescribed by the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act; and (c) three children are disabled persons; (d) civil conciliation is established between the owner of the instant building site and the owner of the instant building site; and (e) there is a position to remove the instant building and deliver the land until December 31, 2017; and (e) it is difficult for the Plaintiff to pay the enforcement fine of this case to the public official in charge of the Plaintiff by visiting the Defendant around August 2016; and (b) there is no place where the Plaintiff would move to the public official in charge of the Plaintiff’s economic situation and move to the removal of the instant building in the future.

Therefore, the plaintiff believed that the public official in charge of the plaintiff extended the administrative disposition and is currently residing in the building of this case.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unreasonable.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Determination on the first argument.