1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 10, 1997, a chemical electricity construction company (hereinafter “non-party company”) obtained approval for use from the Defendant under Article 18 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5395 of Aug. 28, 1997) with respect to the Posib B population B.

(hereinafter referred to as “approval for use of this case”). (b)

On May 3, 199, the Plaintiff purchased the lending No. 401 (hereinafter “the lending of this case”) from Nonparty Company and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on May 6, 199.

C. The Defendant conducted an on-site investigation upon the occurrence of a civil petition filed by the Defendant for the control of illegal buildings with respect to the instant Bara, and confirmed that the instant Dora on the fourth floor area of 57.02 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building part”) was used inside Dora as it was extended differently from the drawing of the building ledger, and ordered the Plaintiff to restore the instant building part to its original state by May 31, 2009, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant Dora’s violation was entered in the building ledger.

(No. 6) d.

On July 24, 2009, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 9,921,480 on the ground that Article 11 of the Building Act was violated against the Plaintiff on December 11, 2009.

(No. 9) e.

Around October 2010, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant building was restored to its original state, and on November 25, 2011, the Defendant entered the cancellation of the instant building in the building ledger.

On the other hand, on November 30, 201, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.

The enforcement fines stated in the subsection were fully paid.

F. However, as the Defendant confirmed that the instant building was not yet restored to its original state, unlike the Plaintiff’s notice of restoration, on February 28, 2012, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore the instant building to its original state by April 13, 2012, notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant building was entered in the building ledger, and issued the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 2 and below.