beta
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. On May 29, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Goyang-gu B and Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, the second-class neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants); and (b) divided the instant building into 38 units after completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the steel-based concrete tanks 489.35 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”); and (c) sold the instant building to a third party on several occasions from May 25, 201, on several occasions on December 6391, 12.639105/489.35 shares or shares 1.6315/489.35 shares.
B. After an on-site investigation into the instant building, the Defendant issued a corrective order pursuant to Article 19(2)2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Building Act”), Article 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act”), on the ground that the Plaintiff and the co-owners of the instant building violate Article 19(2)2 of the former Building Act, and Article 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) to the Plaintiff on January 11, 2013 and February 28, 2013.
C. On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order issued by the Defendant, and the Defendant imposed KRW 39,392,000 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80(1)2 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff merely used the instant building as “office” or “public official” among Class II neighborhood living facilities, but did not change it to the purpose of the building belonging to the group of residential business facilities. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not violate Article 19(2)2 of the former Building Act.