1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s spouse B purchased a house of 177 square meters and a house of 75.34 square meters and a house of 75.34 square meters (5.34 square meters and 66.34 square meters and 5.34 square meters and 9 square meters and 66.34 square meters and 66.34 square meters and 1 roof) in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoul. The Plaintiff’s spouse completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 2, 1984

B. Around May 16, 191, a fire presumed to be a joint line with electricity occurred, and the household gate, etc. was destroyed. B, around 1992, constructed a 2-story house with 1st floor of cement brick 87.67 square meters, 84.36 square meters, and 174.03 square meters in total, on the ground of 174.03 square meters (hereinafter “the instant house”). On April 10, 1992, the building gate for the existing house was destroyed or disposed of.

(c)

As to the above site, D completed the registration of transfer of ownership on November 16, 1995 after having completed the registration of transfer of ownership on November 12, 2003. On November 12, 2003, the Plaintiff entered the registration of transfer of ownership in excess of the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale. On December 10, 2014, the land was divided into C large 162 square meters and E large 15 square meters.

(d)

On January 13, 2020, the Defendant newly constructed the instant house without permission, and confirmed that the instant house still was in violation on August 27, 2019, and imposed KRW 6,724,650 on the Plaintiff on January 13, 202 after undergoing the hearing procedure, etc. ( = 118,00 square meters on the standard market value of the first floor x 89.67 square meters on the non-compliant area x 50% on the construction premium rate x 100% x 34,00 won on the standard market value of the second floor x 84.36 square meters on the non-compliant area x 50% on the construction premium rate x 10% on the construction premium rate x 100% on the housing site x 24, 209). On the other hand, the instant housing site was authorized to implement the redevelopment project after the establishment of the redevelopment project, but no specific approval was granted to the redevelopment project association for the development project.

[Evidence: Evidence of No. 1 to 5, Evidence No. 15, Evidence No. 3 to 9, 12, and 13]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. A. A person who purchased and resided in a house under the name of the Plaintiff’s spouse, and was destroyed by a fire, and only the columns and walls are left, thereby compensating the tenants for the damages.