1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a facility installed with a prefabricated structure with a total floor area of 18 square meters and a prefabricated structure in the window B of Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant facility”).

B. On March 19, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant building in violation of Article 14 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 12246, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter “the Building Act”) on the ground that the instant building was illegally constructed without filing a building report, pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above disposition, but the Changwon District Court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on November 28, 2014, on the ground that “the instant facility constitutes a building subject to the procedures such as a building report under the Building Act, and the instant facility without going through such procedures constitutes a building in violation of the Building Act, and the said disposition is lawful.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on January 18, 2016.

[Chowon District Court 2014Guhap1503, Busan High Court 2014Nu12034, Supreme Court 2015Du52487] D.

On July 11, 2016, the Defendant imposed an enforcement fine of KRW 654,412 on the Plaintiff under Article 80 of the Building Act to the effect that the Plaintiff did not voluntarily remove the instant facilities.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3 and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The instant facilities asserted by the Plaintiff do not constitute a building report under the Building Act, which is a farming shed prescribed by relevant statutes, such as the Farmland Act.

Even if the instant facility falls under a building under the Building Act, since the land category of the site where the instant facility is located is farmland, it is only required to comply with the procedures for restoring the land under the Farmland Act, not the procedures for restoring the land under the Building Act

Nevertheless, the defendant raises an objection in accordance with the Building Act.