beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 3,582,640, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2016 by KRW 3,607,480.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff is the owner of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) No. 101 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).
The outside of the building of this case has a public open area under Article 43 of the Building Act.
The Defendant imposed KRW 3,607,480 on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2016, pursuant to Article 80(4) of the Building Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff installed an entrance at the public open area.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on September 30, 2016, but was dismissed on November 28, 2016.
【Ground of recognition】 The Plaintiff did not have any dispute, written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the entire pleading, and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the Plaintiff did not have installed the entrance at the public open area.
In addition, there is no provision that no entrance shall be installed in the public open area.
Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.
It is as stated in the relevant statutes.
Judgment
1) Whether the Plaintiff installed the entrance in the area of the public open area, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 7 (Ga number Nos. 7) and the following circumstances, which can be seen by adding up the entries and images of the public open area, including the number of pages, and the result of the on-site inspection and the purport of the present court, are installed in the area adjacent to the public open area, i.e., the entrance of the building of this case, which is, the entrance of the building of this case is only installed in the area adjacent to the public open area, but is not immediately exempted from the public open area, but it is reasonable to view that the entrance of this case, which is used for access to the building of this case, is accessible to the public open area due to very narrow area, and the entrance of this case