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, as the owner of Gangnam-gu Seoul and C’s site and its ground housing located within a development restriction zone (hereinafter “instant housing”), installed a light steel-frame temporary building under the top of the instant housing (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff violated Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”) by building the instant building within a development restriction zone without permission; (b) calculated the building area of the instant building into 20 square meters; and (c) imposed a charge for compelling compliance KRW 3,830,500 on August 7, 2017 pursuant to Article 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zones Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On the grounds delineated below, the instant disposition is wholly or partially unlawful.

1) Since the instant building, which was unlawful in calculating the building area of the instant building, was installed under the eaves of the instant house installed by lawful permission, it should be excluded from the length of the side of the instant building by one meter. Therefore, the building area of the instant building ought to be calculated by 20 square meters not exceeding 5 meters (=5 meters x 4 meters) but not 16 square meters (4 meters x 4 meters). 2) The Defendant calculated the standard market price of the instant building without considering the remaining percentage of the elapsed years of the instant building.

Even if it is not so, the defendant considered the transitional profit ratio on the premise that the building of this case is a cement block structure even though it is a lightweight structure.

3. In violation of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act, the defendant violates the disposition of this case based on the structure index, use index, location index, etc. of the building that served as the basis for calculating the charge for compelling execution.