1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 21, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose a charge for compelling the performance under Article 80 of the Building Act on the Plaintiff’s “Seoul Jung-gu B”, “non-fluoring of a violation (235.47 square meters),” “non-fluoring of a violation”, and “235.47 square meters of a fine for compelling the performance” as the imposed area.

[The payer in the notice of imposition on August 24, 2015 is indicated as “non-Plaintiffs and 1,” but the payer’s address is indicated as “Seoul Jung-gu H, which is subject to the said imposition,” and the payer’s notice of default on August 30, 2016, notified the amount under the following sub-paragraph (b), is also indicated as “non-Plaintiffs and 1, but the payer’s address is also indicated as “Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu I Apartment and 10 Dong 103, which is the Plaintiff’s address.”

On August 30, 2016, when the lawsuit of this case was pending in the court of first instance, the Defendant corrected the year of the above violation from 2007 to 2006, and notified the Defendant of the reduction of the enforcement fine to 32,424,000 won.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” for the remaining part of the disposition of imposition by August 21, 2015, which was reduced, shall be deemed to be “the grounds for recognition”), which is without dispute, the entry in Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 4-2, and Eul’s evidence 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The extension portion which the Defendant deemed to have expanded without permission (hereinafter “the extension portion of this case”).

(B) It shall be displayed in the form of building B, building C, building D ground 2, building D ground 2, and building J ground 2 (hereinafter referred to as “B building”).

The part falling under the third floor of this case. The plaintiff is merely a co-owner of the building B and C, and is not a manager of the extended part of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case imposing a non-performance penalty on the plaintiff as to the whole of the extended part of this case is unlawful. 2) The disposition of this case is unlawful in that it is erroneous in the usage index, location index, and the remaining rate by the number of years during the calculation of the amount of the non-performance penalty.