On December 30, 2019, the imposition of enforcement fine of KRW 6,176,670 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) was approved for use on March 29, 201, and the Plaintiff is a right holder who completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 27, 2015 with respect to the instant building on October 23, 2015.

B. Around October 20, 2003, the Defendant discovered that six households have increased without permission on each of the first, second, and third floors of the instant building. For the foregoing reason, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a notice of correction on October 15, 2019, the corrective promotion district on November 5, 2019, and the notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty on December 2, 2019.

C. Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff did not correct the violation, on December 30, 2019, the Defendant imposed a disposition of imposition of KRW 6,176,670 for non-performance penalty (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the “non-major repair (or 365 square meters: 365.7 square meters)” of the instant building was a violation.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The time when the number of households of the instant building alleged by the Plaintiff increased is prior to the addition of “extension” under the definition of “large-scale repair” under the Building Act. Since the scope of “large-scale repair” under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act is prior to the addition of “repair or alteration of party walls, which are the main structural parts between households and households of multi-family housing and multi-household housing,” the instant disposition under the premise that the number of households of the instant building is increased shall be revoked by unlawful means.

B. 1) Determination 1) In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the inquiry and reply as to the family number increase time of the building of this case, the following evidence and evidence Nos. 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 through 10, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12-1 and 2, and the whole purport of the arguments in this court as to the fact inquiry and reply to the Gangnam Southern Southern Southern Southern Service Center of this case, the 1, 2, and 3 floors of this case are two households (the approval for use as multi-family house is obtained.