1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of recognition and disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, without obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Building Act, performed the construction work to extend the unauthorized building existing on the ground of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu to the building of the board rescue factory (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On August 6, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the suspension order for unauthorized expansion of the area of 147 square meters due to the instant construction project and the scheduled imposition of the charge for compelling performance. On August 7, 2015, the following day, the Defendant revised the area of the violation into 330 square meters through the actual survey, and notified the Plaintiff of the scheduled fact of the corrective order and the imposition of the charge for compelling performance regarding the area of the violation area of 330 square meters on August 8, 2015 and September 21, 2015.

C. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to impose a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff, who did not correct any unlawful matter, and issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty amounting to KRW 45,375,000 (= statutory standard price = 275,000 x applicable rate 0.5 x 330 square meters) on January 6, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The defendant's disposition of this case by the plaintiff is procedural error that does not accurately specify the violation area in the process or does not provide sufficient guidance.

In addition, the instant building was a large-scale repair of the building that did not perform the basic construction due to the deterioration of the building while the Plaintiff was performing repair works for the existing building.

Therefore, although the defendant applied the reduction rate of a building that did not construct the foundation when calculating the charge for compelling compliance to the area in violation, the defendant calculated the charge for compelling compliance without applying such reduction rate, the disposition in this case is unlawful.

Even if not, the enforcement fine of the instant disposition is against the Plaintiff.