1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s charges for compelling the performance against the Plaintiff on August 9, 2017 KRW 8,59,200.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 19, 190, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building with one story underground and one story above ground (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul and C with a building permit granted by the Defendant on February 19, 190. On July 3, 1990, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use thereof [the site area: 361.4 square meters, total floor area, 203.01 square meters, building area: 180.23 square meters, and parking lot: 27.5 square meters (hereinafter outdoor two lots)].

The ground plan of the instant building and the attached parking lot approved by the Plaintiff is as follows:

(1) The annexed parking lot in this case is the annexed parking lot. (2) The annexed parking lot in this case is the annexed parking lot.

On June 10, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to correct unlawful matters by July 13, 2016, on the ground that there was a violation of Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act, among the annexed parking lots of the instant building (hereinafter “instant parking lot”), among the annexed parking lots of the instant building, and issued a corrective order again to the Plaintiff on October 18, 2016, ordering the Plaintiff to correct unlawful matters by November 14, 2016, when the Plaintiff did not comply with the said corrective order.

(A) The defendant only stated the applicable law as "Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act" while issuing the above corrective order, but did not specify it as "Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act" in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the same Article.

On November 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a prior instruction to impose a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff on November 22, 2016, and on August 9, 2017, imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 8,59,200 under Article 32(1)1 of the Parking Lot Act (=land value of KRW 3,583,00 x 12m2 x x 12m2) x 20% of the imposition rate) on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 7, 11, 15, 18, 21 evidence, Eul 12 and 16 evidence, or the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act alleged by the Plaintiff is a wall and roof to the parking lot.