1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 1997, the Plaintiff is the owner of each of the instant buildings, the registration of ownership transfer of which was completed with respect to the instant building with respect to the size of 76.78 square meters and 38.4 square meters of the Dong-dong building (hereinafter respectively referred to as “instant operating building” and “the instant B-dong building,” collectively referred to as “each of the instant buildings”).

B. Around 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective order pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act on the ground that each of the instant buildings was substantially repaired (not including the area of 115.08 square meters in violation, the area of 115.08 square meters in violation and the area of 59.24 square meters in violation) and extended ( not including the area of 1

C. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 7,410,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with a corrective order, but did not perform the corrective order, on the ground that at least three roof trussess, 30 square meters of a load bearing wall size of at least 115.08 square meters (excluding the removal of a building as a result of a field re-inspection) were repaired, and an extension [excluding the removal of a building as a result of a field re-inspection] was not implemented, on the ground that: (a) more than three roof trussess were repaired for each of the instant buildings without filing a report on construction; and (b) an extension [excluding the removal of a building as a result of a field re-inspection].

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff purchased each of the buildings of this case and used each of the buildings of this case as it was, but did not fall under substantial repair stipulated in the Building Act. 2) The Plaintiff purchased each of the buildings of this case and used them as it was.

In addition, even if the former owner of each building of this case extended the building, it was before the establishment of the grounds for imposing enforcement fines for extension without the building report.