logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.04.27 2016구단57437
건축이행강제금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 19, 2014, while the Plaintiff was operating a parking lot in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu and two lots, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building with a building permit from the Defendant to install a temporary building of light-scale steel-frame structure (hereinafter “instant temporary building”) for the purpose of temporary parking on the above land, and obtained approval for the use from the Defendant on May 29, 2015.

B. On December 21, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to correct the instant temporary building from the temporary garage to the door-to-door distribution facility without permission by January 23, 2016, and notified that enforcement fines may be imposed if not corrected. On February 1, 2016, the period for the second correction was fixed as until February 24, 2016, and the corrective promotion was made by setting the period for the second correction as until March 18, 2016, and the prior notice for the imposition of enforcement fines was given to the Plaintiff on March 23, 2016, and the violation was not corrected, and on March 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a prior notice for the imposition of enforcement fines (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The consortium level installed in the instant temporary building is merely a temporary installation for the convenience of the work process in which cargo in the instant elective transport vehicle is moved to another vehicle because it is possible to move, and the instant temporary building still is used as a temporary parking lot garage. Thus, the use of the instant temporary building cannot be deemed to have been changed to a storage facility from the original temporary parking lot garage to a collection-distribution facility. 2) The Defendant notified the instant disposition prior to or the instant temporary installation.

arrow