1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building, which completed the registration of ownership transfer as of August 10, 2009, due to the sale by voluntary auction on August 3, 2009, on the sixth floor (Nos. 601 through 606, hereinafter “instant building”) of the 6th floor of the building on the ground of the 3rd floor (the 601 through 606, hereinafter “instant building”).

B. In accordance with Articles 19, 79, and 80 of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff illegally changed the use of the instant building (an officetel of educational research and welfare facilities or accommodation facilities), the Defendant issued a disposition as shown below.

(2) On September 1, 2011, the first corrective order, which was issued on September 201, 201, was restored to the original state (defluence removal) on December 7, 2011, and the second corrective order, which was issued on September 1, 201, issued on September 201, 201, issued on July 201, 201; imposition of enforcement fines on July 18, 2012; imposition of enforcement fines on July 2012, 201; imposition of enforcement fines on July 18, 2012; imposition of enforcement fines; imposition of enforcement fines on July 2013, 2013; imposition of enforcement fines on July 13, 2013; imposition of enforcement fines on July 2013, 2013; imposition of enforcement fines on KRW 84,789; imposition of enforcement fines on July 13, 2013; imposition of enforcement fines on September 13, 2018, 2013

C. As to the instant building, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 22, 2014 on the third party, and the state of illegality was corrected.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 13 through 16, 22 and 23 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① there is procedural defect in the instant corrective order without prior notice and hearing of opinions. ② The instant corrective order and the imposition of enforcement fines are in violation of the principle of trust protection, the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation legislation, the principle of proportionality, and the principle of equality, thereby abusing or abusing discretion.

3. Also, these defects.