(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.11.14 2017구단33254 (1)

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.11.14 2017구단33254 (1)

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. From July 3, 1990, the Plaintiff owned a building with the first floor and the first floor size on each land in Songpa-gu Seoul and C (hereinafter “instant building”) from around July 3, 1990.

B. The Defendant imposed a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty pursuant to Article 80(1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 14935, Oct. 24, 2017; hereinafter the same) on the Plaintiff following a corrective order and an order for imposition of a non-performance penalty, as listed below:

(C) In the event that an applicant is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact that he/she is aware of the fact.

C. On March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on March 24, 2017, but the appeal was dismissed on July 24, 2017.

On October 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition with this court.

(No appeal procedure has been followed against the disposition No. 3). 【No. 1,7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 40, Gap's statements, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1 Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the proviso of Article 79(2) of the former Building Act has been violated shall have been sufficiently given the period required for correction to the Plaintiff in consideration of the purport of the proviso of Article 79(2) of the former Building Act. However, it is sufficient at the time of the instant corrective order.

참조조문

-건축법 제79조 제2항

-건축법 제80조 제1항

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.09.20 2017구합20318

-부산지방법원 2019.02.14 2018구합1337

-제주지방법원 2019.10.02 2018구합5769

-서울고등법원 2019.02.01 2018누63411

-서울행정법원 2015.09.04 2015구단1833