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 the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building B (hereinafter “instant building”), and one side of the outdoor parking lot (hereinafter “instant outdoor parking lot”) did not maintain its original function by installing a temporary building, piling up goods, etc., and on December 4, 2012, the indoor parking lot of one side (hereinafter “instant indoor parking lot”) was controlled by changing it to another purpose without permission.

B. Around December 5, 2012, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to reinstate the outdoor and indoor parking lot of this case by January 4, 2013, and issued an order for the correction thereof again on January 11, 2013.

C. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff failed to reinstate, the Defendant issued an order for restitution and a prior notice of imposition of charges for compelling the performance on March 21, 2013, around February 21, 2013.

On July 4, 2013, the Defendant visited the site to confirm that the Plaintiff failed to implement the restoration order under the corrective order, and issued a disposition to impose the enforcement fine of KRW 7,416,000 based on the Parking Lot Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on July 5, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and 8 (including each number), video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff fulfilled his/her duty under the Defendant’s restoration order around February 2013.

On June 30, 2013, the directors of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building.

No one who owns a vehicle from among the persons who reside in the instant building.

Nevertheless, without considering such circumstances, the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful since it took photographs around July 4, 2013, without giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to take corrective measures.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The plaintiff's order to reinstate was issued by the defendant.