beta
Text
1. On July 31, 2014, the Defendant imposed a charge for compelling the performance of KRW 24,852,00,00 on the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacturing business of ready-mixed at the 55, 59, 137, and 48 U.S. in the open-dong Eup's establishment of the racing and the following:
(b).
It is the owner of a building 1 or 7.
Article 14 of the Building Act on January 15, 183; Article 8-2 of the Public Waters Act on January 15, 1993; Article 8-2 of the Public Waters Act on January 15, 1993; Article 11 of the Building Act on December 16, 1991; Article 8-4 of the Public Waters Act on August 16, 1991; Article 11 of the Building Act on August 16, 1991; Article 8-4 of the Public Waters Act on 59 aggregate warehouses, light fluorries, light fluorial fluorial fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor f.
B. On October 29, 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective order that orders the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove and reinstate the following warehouses by November 30, 2013 (hereinafter “first corrective order”) on the grounds that the Defendant illegally constructed and used the following warehouses, etc. in violation of Article 14 of the Building Act or Article 8 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act (hereinafter “Public Waters Act”), and Article 33 of the River Act (hereinafter “the first corrective order”). On December 3, 2013, the Defendant issued the second corrective order that orders the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove and reinstate the site by December 30, 2013 (hereinafter “the second corrective order”). On the yearly basis, the Defendant issued the second corrective order that orders the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove and reinstate the site by December 30, 2013 (hereinafter “the second corrective order”). The size of the structure of the building site (the size of the building site) in violation of the law of construction year (the steel structure) and the structure (the steel structure) pursuant to Article 670.137
C. On January 28, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore each of the buildings of this case to its original state within the prompt time limit by adding an additional number to a building in violation of Article 33 of the River Act and Article 83 of the Building Act (hereinafter referred to as “one building”) on the ground that the following ready-mixed production facilities were constructed in violation of Article 33 of the River Act and Article 83 of the Building Act.
Except for the removal by the plaintiff of the building Nos. 5 and 6.