beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 3,810,930 of the charges for compelling compliance against the Plaintiff on June 27, 2018 is KRW 4,731,250.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff is a sectional owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the fourth floor of 921.78 square meters [the details of amusement facilities (a dance hall) and 158.86 square meters of sports facilities (hereinafter “instant building parts”)] among the buildings indicated in attached Table 1 “real estate indication” (hereinafter “real estate indication”).
B From December 13, 200 to December 13, 200, attached Table 2, among the parts of the building of this case, the following facts are attached to the 4,5, 6, 21, 22, 9, 10, 19, 20, 20, 19, 20, and 4, which are amusement facilities, and the Defendant was equipped with a restaurant facility such as a kitchen room and a hole, and reported the business of food service business (general restaurant) to the Defendant, and operated a restaurant with the name of “C cafeteria” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). The former owner of the building of this case and the Plaintiff confirmed that part of the instant 1, 17, 16, 14, 18, 11, 12, 13, and 50,000 square meters of the instant part of the building, which had been connected to each point of the 4, 50,500,000 square meters of the instant part of the building without permission.
Accordingly, on March 12, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, of the fact that the violation was indicated as follows and that the corrective measure was finally ordered by April 11, 2018 based on Article 79 of the Building Act, and that if the correction was not made within the corrective period, the Defendant may be subject to a disadvantageous disposition, such as the imposition of enforcement fines, etc.
D E E AF G Plaintiff only submitted a written opinion to the effect that the aforementioned corrective order is unfair on December 13, 2000 on the ground that the instant restaurant was duly reported on its business on May 31, 2018, but did not comply with the corrective measures on the instant part of the building.
The defendant.