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 extended a building of 137.7 square meters of land on the rooftop of the building B in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si without obtaining a building permit (hereinafter “instant extension”).

B. On November 19, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate the building to its original state pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act on the ground that the building of lightweight structure was enlarged on the rooftop of the building B in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul.

C. As the Plaintiff did not comply with the above corrective order, the Defendant issued a prior notice of imposition of enforcement fines and a prior notice thereof to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2015.

On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion to the Defendant on March 5, 2015, stating that the part extended by the Plaintiff without permission is not less than 307.58 square meters, but not more than 139.4 square meters, and that it is not a light steel-frame but a prefabricated panel building.

E. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the area of unauthorized extension was 137.7 square meters as a result of an on-site investigation, and notified the Plaintiff of the scheduled amount to be imposed by correcting the enforcement fine due to an error in the area.

F. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant calculated a non-performance penalty as follows, and imposed and collected KRW 35,044,000 on the Plaintiff for non-performance penalty (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

0.5 = 35,04,650 won = 509,00 won (the base amount for new construction of a building 2015 x 650,000 won x usage index (135 x 55) x structural index (13) x location index (13) x x 55% (0.955), and 0.5 square meters of 137.7 square meters of a non-violation area 137.7 square meters of a non-violation area x 137.5 x 35,04,650 won [the basis for recognition]]; the fact that there is no dispute; the evidence set forth in subparagraph 1; the evidence set forth in subparagraph 2, 3, 5 through 8; the evidence set forth in subparagraph 9-1 and 2; and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 extension part was constructed as a prefabricated panel, the structural index “50” should be applied in calculating enforcement fines. The extension part of this case is light steel structure.