beta
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. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government-gu Ground Building B (hereinafter “instant building”) (13.75m2, 13.75m2, 20.94m2, 1st floor and 6.6m2, 2nd floor and 27.54m2, 27.54m2, hereinafter “instant building”).
B. On June 2, 2011, the Defendant issued a corrective order, setting the period for payment as July 8, 201, on the ground that “the Plaintiff, while removing part of the instant building, reconstructed the first and second floors (28.4 square meters, respectively) without permission (hereinafter “instant violation”).
As the Plaintiff did not correct the instant violation by the implementation deadline, on October 17, 201, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the charge for compelling the performance under Articles 79 and 80 of the Building Act 6,68,000 square meters (28.4 square meters on the first floor, 28.4 square meters on the second floor, and 28.4 square meters).
C. As to this, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing enforcement fines (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan2354). On October 10, 2012, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “prior judgment”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive.
In 2012, the Defendant issued an order to correct the instant violation and imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 6,716,00,000 upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing the non-performance penalty (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan5176), and the Defendant withdrawn the said lawsuit upon the Plaintiff’s change of the non-performance penalty of KRW 4,00,000 upon the court’s recommendation for adjustment.
E. On October 15, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to rectify the instant violation by November 20, 2013, and notified the Plaintiff that the enforcement fine should be imposed if the instant violation is not corrected by the said deadline.
F. However, the Plaintiff did not correct the instant violation by the execution deadline, and the Defendant on December 11, 2013 against the Plaintiff, pursuant to Articles 79 and 80 of the Building Act, 6,502.