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. The Plaintiff’s wife Nonparty B is the owner of the Guri-si 2,315 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located in the development restriction zone.
Nonparty D, the owner of the land of this case, was previously permitted to do so on the ground of the above land by the Defendant. Nonparty D, the owner of the land of this case, had previously obtained permission from the Defendant for the construction of a temporary building with the purport that he/she may build a container of 18 square meters in the management office (office).
B. The Plaintiff, while running a warehouse business in the name of “E” from early 2012, opened 14.4 square meters of container 26 square meters of 14.4 square meters of container on the ground of the instant land from early 2012 and used 14.4 square meters of container for the purpose of the warehouse as two parts, and used 14.4 square meters of container for the purpose of the warehouse, for the purpose of the toilet, and for the purpose of 27 square meters of container for the rest room.
C. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff and Nonparty B of the corrective order on May 8, 2012 and June 8, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s use of container as above violates Article 12(1) of the Special Act on Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”), which prohibits the construction of a building within a development restriction zone as a temporary building.
On August 1, 2012, when the Defendant visited the site to verify whether the corrective order was complied with, the Plaintiff was in the state of restoring only the containers for the use of the rest room to its original state, and the container used for the storage purpose was increased from 26 to 30 (area: 432 square meters x 14.4 square meters x 30).
E. On March 8, 2013, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 32,848,80 on the Plaintiff on July 4, 2013, and imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 32,848,80 on the Plaintiff. The container for the use of the resting room that was restored to its original state and the container for the use of the first floor office that was permitted for permanent exemption is subject to each imposition of non-performance