1. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 5,027,00 on the Plaintiff for the imposition of a non-performance penalty amount of KRW 31,847,00 on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B was the owner of the 1st floor building of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s ground year C and Pyeongtaek-gu’s neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 2, 2015.

B. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant discovered the fact that the second floor of the instant building, which was the first floor as a result of the survey conducted by the Defendant around August 19, 2014, was illegally expanded to steel structures.

C. On November 2014, the Defendant issued an order to take corrective measures, such as removing the building by November 9, 2014, to B, the owner of the instant building, and issued an order to take corrective measures, such as removing the building by November 9, 2014. On December 13, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to D to take corrective measures, such as removing the building by December 13, 2014.

On December 24, 2014, the Defendant imposed a disposition of KRW 32,528,00 for the enforcement fine on B based on Article 80 of the Building Act (hereinafter “previous disposition”) on the ground that the Defendant failed to comply with the corrective order within the corrective period.

E. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to take corrective measures, such as removing a building by October 10, 2015, and issued a corrective order to the effect that the Plaintiff would remove the building by November 13, 2015. On October 13, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective measures, such as removing the building by November 13, 2015.

F. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant imposed upon the Plaintiff a disposition imposing KRW 31,847,000 for the enforcement fine (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff based on Article 80 of the Building Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant calculated enforcement fines on the ground that the part concerning the unauthorized extension of the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case was a steel pipe structure, and thus, it was unlawful for the Defendant to apply the structure index of the building, which serves as the basis for calculating enforcement fines.

(b).