1. The Defendant’s imposition of enforcement fines exceeding KRW 6,447,00,00, imposed on the Plaintiff on April 19, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, along with B, etc., constructed a reinforced concrete structure (refinites), a multi-household of five floors (multi-household houses), an urban residential housing, 23.28 square meters, 173.43 square meters, 3 floors, 173.43 square meters, 173.43 square meters, 173.43 square meters, 176.32 square meters, 116.32 square meters, 5 stories on the ground of Gwangju Northern-gu D (E), and completed the registration of co-ownership on February 6, 2013.

B. Around 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order twice as to the detection of unlawful matters of the instant building (the extension of part of the instant building without permission, alteration of purpose of use, etc.), but the Plaintiff did not comply with the said corrective order. On December 8, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 5,743,000 on the Plaintiff, etc. (hereinafter “previous disposition”).

E AB C

C. Notwithstanding the previous disposition, the Plaintiff did not correct the unlawful matters of the instant building; on December 14, 2016, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to correct the violation, and notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of enforcement fines of KRW 9,589,000. The Plaintiff partly accepted the Plaintiff’s objection and urged the Plaintiff to correct the violation again on March 2, 2017, and notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of enforcement fines of KRW 6,671,00.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on April 19, 2017, did not correct the illegality of the instant building, issued a disposition imposing enforcement fines of KRW 6,671,000 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute or significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 6, 7 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff alleged that the instant building originally constituted “residential building with a total floor area of 85 square meters or less” under the proviso to Article 80(1) of the Building Act, and thus, it should be subject to reduction when imposing enforcement fines. However, in accordance with Supreme Court Decision 2017Du6633, the said assertion was rendered.