1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are owners of collective buildings for the use of two underground floors, seven floors, residential facilities with a total floor area of 2,378.99 square meters located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiffs owned Nos. 101, 201, 301, 401, 501, 501, 502, and 601 of the instant building; and Plaintiff B owned Nos. 102, 202, 302, 402, 503, 504, 603, 604, and 702 of the instant building.

B. The purpose of the instant building is a neighborhood living facility from the first to the fourth above ground, and multi-household dwelling facility from the fifth to the seventh above ground. The Plaintiffs are engaged in the leasing business by illegally remodeling the above neighborhood living facility into a studio-type housing without permission from the head of Seocho-gu.

From 2012 to 2016, a non-performance penalty (hereinafter “instant non-performance penalty”) was paid as shown in attached Forms 1 and 2.

C. On December 30, 2016, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport sent a reply as follows (hereinafter “instant reply to the land of this case”) regarding the “standards for calculating charges for compelling the use of the partitionedly partitioned part of a collective living facility” in relation to the calculation of charges for compelling the use without permission.

On April 2017, the Plaintiffs raised an objection to the head of Seocho-gu to the head of Seocho-gu stating that “In accordance with the reply of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Plaintiffs excluded the parking lot area from the violation area due to the unauthorized change of the use of the building of this case.” The head of Seocho-gu sent the Seocho-gu reply as follows (hereinafter “the Seocho

D C A [Ground for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The part that the defendant changed the use of the plaintiffs without obtaining permission or filing a report under attached Table 15-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (based on the calculation of non-performance penalty).