1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the aggregate building of the fifth floor size B (hereinafter “instant building”) of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is referred to as “Nos. 101, 102, and 103 (hereinafter “No. 101, 102, and 103,” and collectively referred to as “each of the instant units”.

B. On July 24, 2017, the Defendant revealed that all 101 units indicated as “office”, “educational research and welfare facilities”, and “child-care centers” indicated as “house” were used by the Plaintiff. On July 24, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to voluntarily improve each unit of the instant units, the use of which was altered without permission, until August 28, 2017, and the Plaintiff failed to comply with the corrective order, and urged the Plaintiff again to implement the said corrective order by September 29, 2017.

C. However, on October 13, 2017, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above time limit, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the charge for compelling execution will be imposed, as shown in the attached Table, if the Plaintiff fails to voluntarily maintain the respective units of the instant units of units by November 12, 2017, and the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above time limit, and on November 13, 2017, the enforcement fine is not imposed on the Plaintiff as shown in the attached Table.

(ii) [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, the entry of Eul Nos. 1 to 4, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant building located in the 1CB promotion zone for the Plaintiff’s assertion was planned to move and remove around February 2019, making it difficult to use it for its original purpose. The Plaintiff used it before its removal to repair and lease the instant building as a temporary house by using it to reduce the tax burden.

The defendant's imposition of enforcement fines on the plaintiff without considering these circumstances is discretionary.