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 of the 3-6th floor (C, D, E, F, and hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned building”) among the buildings of the 13th floor above the former 13th floor during Ansan-si.

B. In early 2015, the Plaintiff leased all the Plaintiff-owned buildings, which are Class II neighborhood living facilities, to a house (studio, 9 households by floor, and 36 households) without permission.

C. As above, the Defendant issued a corrective order ordering the Plaintiff to restore the Plaintiff’s building to its original state on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 19 of the Building Act by altering its use without permission, and ordered the Plaintiff to impose a non-performance penalty if the Plaintiff failed to comply with the corrective order. Nevertheless, on December 27, 2018, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 6720,000 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the corrective order by the prescribed deadline.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 1-2, Eul’s evidence 1-2, Eul’s evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 80-2 of the Building Act and Article 115-4(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a lease agreement has already been concluded prior to the initial corrective order for a building in violation, and accordingly, the lessee is practically unable to correct the violation during the lease period. In the case of the Plaintiff, it is unlawful for the Defendant to take the instant disposition against the Plaintiff without applying the above mitigation provision, even though the lessee is currently residing in the building owned by the Plaintiff, the amount of the enforcement fine is calculated based on the total area of the building owned by the Plaintiff, but the area of the Plaintiff’s residential room is merely the total area of 698 square meters, and thus, the enforcement fine shall be imposed on the Plaintiff.