1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 29, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased a temporary building of the second floor size (the first floor type neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) of the first floor, the second class neighborhood living facilities (office), the second class neighborhood living facilities (office), the second class neighborhood living facilities of the second floor of the second class, the total floor area of 174.52 square meters; hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant discovered, through aerial dust, that 13 square meters of a panel's warehouse on the first floor of the instant building and 20 square meters of a panel's warehouse on the second floor of the instant building were illegally extended on the second floor of the instant building, and issued a corrective order stating that the Plaintiff will remove the illegally extended part and impose a non-performance penalty if the Plaintiff fails to comply with the order.

C. As the Plaintiff did not comply with such corrective order, the Defendant imposed the enforcement fine of KRW 1,060,000 on the part of 13 square meters of warehouse illegally expanded on December 11, 2007 on the Plaintiff. On February 12, 2008, the Defendant imposed the enforcement fine of KRW 1,513,000 on the part of 20 square meters of warehouse illegally expanded on February 12, 2008 (hereinafter “the enforcement fine of this case”).

On August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,573,00 (=1,060,000) for the enforcement fine of this case (=1,513,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, according to Article 80 of the Building Act and Article 38 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty for the year 2007 in 2008 even though it cannot be imposed on the non-performance penalty for the year 2007, and the instant building constitutes a residential building the total floor area of which is not more than 85 square meters, and thus, it cannot be imposed not less than five times, and even though the non-performance penalty for the instant building should be imposed only 1/20, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty for the instant building on not less than five occasions and imposed the total amount of