beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff purchased and owned the instant building on the ground B of Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant building”) around 2011.
B. On November 12, 2014, the Defendant extended the 5.13 square meters in store of the first floor of the instant building. The Defendant changed the use of 64.38 square meters in the 64.38 square meters in the 1st floor of the instant building to the office, repaired the 15.5 square meters in the 4th floor of the housing, and repaired the 15.5 square meters in the 4th floor of the housing, and issued a corrective order for changing the use of 72.1 square meters in the 5th floor of the 5th floor of the instant building into the 5.13 square meters in the 1st floor of the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not restore the original state within the prescribed period, the Defendant imposed the enforcement fine on the Plaintiff on the alteration of the use of 5.13 square meters in the 64.38 square meters in the 1st floor of the 5,259,000, 300, 415.5 square meters in total.
C. On April 29, 2015, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, upon filing an administrative appeal, rendered a ruling to revise the disposition to exempt enforcement fines on the ground that the warehouse illegally extended on the first floor of the instant building was restored to its original state, and the substantial repair part of the balcony of the fourth floor is difficult to be deemed as falling under substantial repair, thereby reducing the enforcement fines against the Plaintiff to KRW 16,361,000, by dismissing the remaining claims.
(hereinafter the above disposition of imposition of KRW 16,361,00 for a non-performance penalty reduced as above). [Grounds for recognition] The statement in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 2, and 3-2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. On June 7, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the portion of 64.62 square meters of the first floor office of the instant building was leased to C until June 6, 2014. The Plaintiff did not lease the 64.38 square meters of the parking lot of the first floor, but C actually used the parking lot of the first floor, and the Plaintiff received a corrective order from the Defendant and received a parking lot against C.