logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.11 2014가단5080214
손해배상(공)
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 16, 2003, the Plaintiff newly constructed the first underground floor, fourth multi-household detached houses and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and obtained approval for the use from the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, as well as the fourth multi-household detached houses and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”).

The plaintiff was approved to use the second, third, and fourth floors of the building of this case as one household, and the building ledger prepared as of December 22, 2003 was entered as such.

From the time when approval for use was obtained to June 2004, the Plaintiff installed and extended the wall and roof by installing additional partition walls, entrance doors, etc. for each of 2, 3, and 4, and dividing each of 3, 4, into 2, and 4, respectively, in a state that the existing partition walls were maintained without repairing or altering the existing partition walls, between the 2, 3, and 4, and the 3, and the 4, as a result of the difference in the floor area between the 3, and the 4, and the roof in a space corresponding to the roof of the 4, below the 4, respectively.

The construction of this case refers to "the construction of this case," but if necessary, it shall be divided into "the unit cost classification" and "the extension of the unit cost". (b)

(1) On January 8, 2004 and March 23, 2004, Defendant Sungnam-si issued a corrective order to reinstate the portion of unauthorized household division among the instant construction works pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Building Act on the ground that the portion of unauthorized household division falls under the substantial repair stipulated in Article 2(1) of the Building Act but did not make a prior report to the competent authority.

On May 4, 2004, the above defendant imposed KRW 5,084,470 on the plaintiff pursuant to Article 83 (1) of the Building Act, who did not correct the violation, and the plaintiff paid it on June 18, 2004.

(2) On November 1, 2006, the Defendant Sungnam-si imposed KRW 4,799,990 for enforcement fine again on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid it on November 7, 2006.

(3) Defendant Sungnam-si shall be the Plaintiff on May 24, 2012 and June 29, 2012.

arrow