1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 8, 1995, B newly constructed a multi-family house 51.03 square meters, 2 stories, 47.93 square meters, 51.03 square meters, 6.75 square meters, 6.75 square meters of a roof tower (hereinafter “instant building”). On October 31, 2003, B purchased the instant building from B and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 11, 2003.

B. On the second floor of the instant building, the Defendant applied Article 79(1) of the Building Act by applying Article 79(1) to the Plaintiff on September 6, 2016, on the ground that the extension of the pipe structure tent of 3 square meters (hereinafter “instant slope”) was made without permission.

On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff failed to perform this, and the Defendant notified the Defendant that the enforcement fine will be imposed upon the non-performance of the order, which was the prior procedure for imposing the enforcement fine under Article 80(1) of the Building Act.

On January 9, 2017, the Defendant imposed KRW 78,750 on the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order of removal (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing enforcement fines”).

C. In addition to the above removal order, on January 10, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to remove the parts of the instant panel (hereinafter “instant corrective order disposition”) on the ground that the water tank room of the rooftop of the instant building had been extended without permission by 8 square meters of the Shado rescue team roof (for the purpose of residence; hereinafter “the instant panel part”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that both the imposition of enforcement fines of this case and the corrective order of this case are unlawful on the following grounds.

1. B, the former owner of the instant building, is legitimate around January 1995.