Plaintiff

The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

June 8, 2009

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 12,432,310 on the Plaintiff on December 29, 2008 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 23, 200, the Plaintiff, along with Nonparty 2, is a co-owner who obtained a building permit for the new construction of one-story underground floor, five-story ground, a total floor area of 1,200.03 square meters from the Defendant on the land of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Dong (hereinafter omitted) and (hereinafter 2 omitted).

B. The Defendant issued a corrective order under Article 79 of the Building Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had occupied and used the building of this case without obtaining approval for use under Article 22 of the Building Act after completing the construction work, and then, issued a corrective order under Article 79 of the Building Act to the Plaintiff on December 29, 2008 by applying Article 80(1), etc. of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff refused to comply with the corrective order within the given period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 200, the Plaintiff received a building permit for the instant building, but transferred the instant building, which was under construction with the instant building site, to Nonparty 1. Nonparty 1 did not transfer his name. As such, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff applied for approval of use or did not comply with the Defendant’s corrective order is unlawful.

(b) Markets:

(1) The enforcement fine under the Building Act is an enforcement fine imposed to ensure the effectiveness of an administrative order in the event the owner, etc. fails to comply with the corrective order for an illegal building. Thus, a legitimate corrective order should be premised to impose it. For a lawful enforcement order, a corrective order should be issued to a person who directly commits a violation of the Building Act or is in a position to implement the corrective order in accordance with the Defendant’s corrective order.

(2) However, according to the overall purport of evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the plaintiff was issued a building permit on June 23, 200 under the name of the non-party 2 and the co-party 1, who operated the non-party 3 corporation on December 22, 2000, sold the building of this case where the structural construction was in progress for 50% at the time, including the change of the owner of each of the building site and the building of this case, to the non-party 1, who was charged with the non-party 1, for 540 million won. After the non-party 1 completed the building of this case without changing the owner's name of the building of this case, the non-party 1 was charged with the non-party 1's pre-use inspection under the name of the plaintiff et al. who was the owner of the building of this case on December 19, 200, and the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 were not charged with the pre-use inspection of this case.

According to the above facts, at the time of the corrective order which became the premise for the disposition of this case, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as the actual owner, owner, or possessor of the building of this case by transferring the building of this case to the non-party 1. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not in a position to respond to the corrective order for the defendant's prior occupancy violation. Thus, the order for prior occupancy violation issued by the defendant against the plaintiff is unlawful.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition imposing a non-compliance with the corrective order is also unlawful on the ground that the non-compliance with the corrective order was not complied with.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judge Choi-ho