1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Intervenor, including those resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor newly constructed “ENF loan,” an aggregate building of the size of 1st underground and 5th ground, as Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, in 163 (hereinafter “instant building”); completed registration of ownership preservation on September 30, 2013; and completed registration of ownership transfer on October 24, 2013 with respect to the part of exclusive ownership, such as Articles 101, 102, and 107, among the instant building, on the ground of “trust”.

B. The Defendant issued the first corrective order to the Plaintiff on December 18, 2013, ordering the Plaintiff to voluntarily correct the instant building by January 17, 2014, and issued the second corrective order again on February 3, 2014 to the Plaintiff by February 24, 2014.

C. On March 11, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of the imposition of charges for compelling compliance. On May 19, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing charges for compelling compliance KRW 13,345,200 (=total size of the non-violationed area x 53.92 square meters x standard market price x 495,000 x rate 0.5) on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor asserts to the effect that it is unreasonable to impose a non-performance penalty on the owner or lessor, since the Plaintiff leased each shop to the lessee, and the lessee installed a middle floor without the lessor’s knowledge.

(b) An administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of disposition shall be instituted within 90 days after the disposition is known;

(1) Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the Plaintiff’s written disposition of this case was served on May 21, 2014 and 90 days passed from September 23, 2014, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence No. 5 No. 5.