logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.02.13 2018구합984
이행강제금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Attached Form No. 4 of the ground level in Daegu Suwon-gu B

1. Around 2015, the owner of the building indicated in the list (hereinafter “instant building”) extended the fourth 26.18 square meters of the instant building, and 7.82 square meters of five stories of five stories of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. On March 6, 2016, the Plaintiff leased part of the fourth floor (one square) of the instant building to C by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 2 million, KRW 150,000 per month, and KRW 7,000 per month from the lease term to March 6, 2019.

The Plaintiff occupied and used the remainder of the fourth floor and the fifth floor among the instant buildings.

C. Upon filing a civil petition against the Plaintiff’s unauthorized extension, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation, and imposed KRW 3,447,00 with regard to the portion of the unauthorized extension which was reduced by one half of the statutory non-performance penalty on June 20, 2017. ② Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not correct the violation, and the Plaintiff again did not correct the violation.

7. 21. 21. Imposition of KRW 3,420,00, which reduced one half of the statutory enforcement fines.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not correct the violation, and the Defendant again imposed KRW 5,58,000 on the Plaintiff on December 28, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the appeal was dismissed.

F. Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff received the instant disposition from the Defendant, it did not correct the violation as to the portion of unauthorized extension.

Accordingly, on June 11, 2018, the Defendant imposed KRW 5,201,00 on the part of unauthorized Extension to the Plaintiff.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

1. The proviso of Article 80 (1) of the Building Act applicable under the proviso of Article 80 (1) of the Building Act.

arrow