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 house of 750 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiff did not report to the Defendant on the extension of the part corresponding to 23.04 square meters of the floor area (hereinafter “the extension part of this case”) by setting up a board on the front part of the building of this case and installing a entrance door (hereinafter “the extension of this case”).

C. On July 20, 2016, the Defendant received a report that the instant extension portion violates the Building Act, and issued a corrective order to voluntarily remove the said extended portion and reinstate it. On August 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to voluntarily remove and reinstate it until September 22, 2016.

On September 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff of the disposition prior to the imposition of a non-performance penalty; (b) followed the hearing procedure on October 24, 2016; and (c) imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 983,00 on the Plaintiff on October 26, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s husband and wife were living in the instant building; (b) the passage of the Plaintiff’s aged husband and wife was exposed to the rain of the building; and (c) the passage of the building upon aging and open door is exposed to the wind; and (d) the extension part of the instant building is merely installing walls and entrances at the seat of the roof; (b) there is no problem if the building report was filed; (c) the Plaintiff’s husband and wife did not have any income; and (d) the Defendant did not exercise any discretionary power in determining whether to impose enforcement fines; and

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The reasoning of the lower judgment is with merit.