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 July 2, 1990 with respect to the building B in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “one building”), the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was completed on July 2, 1990, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of D on July 31, 1986 with respect to the building C in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “2 building”).

1. Although the building is a separate building on the register, it actually constitutes a single building on the structure and function of the building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

B. On the rooftop of the instant building, a warehouse of the board structure (hereinafter “instant extension”) with a size of 25 square meters is expanded without permission, and the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate the instant extension portion to the Plaintiff up to September 25, 2017, pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act, on August 24, 2017, pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act.

C. On October 24, 2017, according to the Plaintiff’s objection against the above corrective order, the Defendant issued a corrective order to restore the part of 19.25 square meters corresponding to the part on the ground owned by the Plaintiff out of the floor area of the extended part of the instant extension to its original state until November 23, 2017, and issued a corrective order to the original state to the effect that the enforcement fine should be imposed if the Defendant fails to comply with the

A student of Plaintiff B 2013 extended 2013 (Rolls) 19.25 Egylls/Board members of the area in the form of occurrence of the location of the owner of the building;

D. On January 25, 2018, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 2,828,000 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the extension portion of this case was arbitrarily constructed D, and the Plaintiff did not participate in it.

Therefore, the instant disposition imposing a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff who is not obligated to restore is unlawful.

B. (i) According to Article 80(1) of the Building Act, determination is made.