1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 14,56,00 on the Plaintiff’s enforcement fine on December 10, 2014 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Around 2009, the head of the B-Myeon confirmed that, on the ground of 793 square meters and D large 1,381 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gunsan-si, Si, Gunsan-si, the building site was newly constructed without permission by 9.75 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the corrective order and the imposition of the charge for compelling the performance, and imposed the charge for compelling the performance on five occasions as follows (hereinafter “instant imposition disposition”), and each of the instant dispositions was imposed upon the Plaintiff.

The details of the first and second orders for the second fiveth orders on July 30, 201, which are issued on July 30, 201, the first and second orders for the second fiveth orders on July 30, 201; the second orders for corrective measures on September 6, 2013; December 4, 2012; the imposition of non-performance penalties on October 16, 2016; and the imposition of non-performance penalties on October 16, 2014; the imposition of non-performance penalties on October 16, 2014; and the imposition of non-performance penalties on November 16, 2014 (the imposition of non-performance penalties on September 28, 2012; the imposition of non-performance penalties on September 20, 2014; the imposition of non-performance penalties on September 16, 2014; the imposition of non-performance penalties on September 12, 2010>

C. Meanwhile, around July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff received the notice of imposition of enforcement fines of the instant disposition Nos. 1 through 4, which was newly issued, from the Defendant around that time, and received the notice of imposition of enforcement fines of the instant disposition No. 5 newly issued on or around January 7, 2015 from the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition of imposition No. 5 is imposed on a building already removed and destroyed, and its defect is serious and clear. 2) The instant building was constructed without permission and operated a frequency of “F frequency” in the trade name of “F frequency”, and completed the removal of the instant building to B around 2014. However, the enforcement fine under Article 80 of the Building Act should be imposed on the owner of the building in violation.