1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seongdong-gu Seoul building site B, and the Plaintiff newly built the 10th floor public notification building on the ground of the said building site (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant approved the use of the instant building on August 8, 2012.

B. The Defendant: (a) removed the balcony window, edge walls, etc. of the instant building from each heading room (total of 34 units) of the instant building; (b) used the balcony part as the interior room; and (c) imposed each corrective order and charges for compelling compliance on the illegal extension of the building installed in the underground space where the upper part should be open, as follows.

1) On June 5, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff that “The instant building is confirmed to have been extended without permission, and thus, the Defendant voluntarily ordered correction by July 11, 2014.” In addition, on July 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff that “The instant building is confirmed to have been extended without permission, and thus, demand voluntary correction by August 13, 2014.”

In the letter of vicarious repair attached to the above corrective order (No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 2 of the above corrective order) (the document No. 2-3 of the evidence No. 2 of the evidence No. 2) there is an entry [the part using the ground floor No. 22.5 square meters as a warehouse and the part expanding the balcony No. 1 through No. 109.

Even though the corrective order (Evidence A No. 2-1) dated June 5, 2014 as stated in the preceding paragraph is deemed to be attached to the letter of vicarious performance, the letter of vicarious performance was not submitted as evidence.

3) On January 22, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition and accusation of the charge for compelling the performance (i.e., failing to comply with the first and second corrective orders). (ii) On April 15, 2015, the Defendant issued corrective orders on the part of the building of this case to the Plaintiff on the first and second occasions, but did not repair within the prescribed period, pursuant to Article 80(1) of the Building Act.