1. The Defendant’s disposition imposing enforcement fines of KRW 75,000,000 against the Plaintiff on May 20, 2015, which was KRW 50,000,000.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is the owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3,756 square meters and C 440 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) located within a development-restricted area.

The Defendant uses a part of the instant land as a parking lot by changing its form and quality and uses it as a parking lot. The Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zone Act”).

On November 29, 2013 and December 19, 2013, on the ground that Article 12 of the "Act was violated, each corrective order was issued to the Plaintiff on the size of 480 square meters in violation.

However, on May 20, 2015, the Defendant, who did not comply with the above corrective order, issued a disposition imposing a total of KRW 75 million (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff habitually committed a violation on the part of the Plaintiff, on the grounds that the Plaintiff had habitually committed a violation with the charge for compelling the performance of approximately KRW 50,000 square meters of the area in violation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 5, 9 and Eul Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate should be revoked for the following reasons.

The instant land is only used as a temporary parking lot by a user of the weekend farm or its neighboring used as a parking lot while the Plaintiff does not use it for its original purpose, and it does not constitute a change in the form and quality of farmland as it does not constitute a simple use of farmland at any time.

Even if part of the instant land was altered, since the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff returned to the original state in accordance with the purport of the corrective order, the Plaintiff should have issued a corrective order again for the instant disposition.

Nevertheless, the defendant imposes a non-performance penalty on the plaintiff without a separate corrective order.