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 (the share 1/2) of a wooden house with a total floor area of 36.03 square meters and legally recorded in the building ledger, located on the land outside Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On November 24, 2014 and December 29, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the order to correct the violation building (25.5 square meters of the size of the violation) which was not permitted or reported under the Building Act. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of a non-performance penalty for correction of the violation.

C. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) measured the non-violation area of the instant appurtenant building; (b) revised it into 15 square meters; and (c) issued a disposition imposing KRW 1,298,250 on the Plaintiff on the same day on the same day on the grounds that the non-violation of the instant appurtenant building was illegal (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 4, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) enacted the “standard for processing the affairs of an existing unauthorized building” and registered a residential building with a total floor area of not more than 85 square meters constructed prior to April 8, 1982 on the existing unauthorized building management ledger, and cultivated it.

However, the annex building of this case is part of the building of this case, which was constructed before April 8, 1982 or was wrong due to defective equipment, and is included in the building of this case, which is a legitimate building, and thus is not subject to enforcement fines.

Even if the instant appurtenant building is unlawful, the Plaintiff’s purchase of the said appurtenant building without knowledge of its illegality, and it is against the principle of trust protection to impose a charge for compelling the performance on around 2014.