1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a kindergarten C (hereinafter “instant building”) within the apartment complex B in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.

B. On December 26, 2011, the Defendant issued a corrective order to voluntarily remove the above building pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had extended the building without permission under Article 11(1) of the Building Act (60.3 square meters on the first floor, 30 square meters on the second floor). However, upon the Plaintiff’s refusal, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 14,94,00 on the Plaintiff on January 27, 2012.

C. Since then, the Defendant confirmed the extension without permission under Article 11(1) of the Building Act (13.2 square meters of cement brick, 18 square meters of prefabricated-type panels on the ground, 83.5 square meters of 2nd floor assembly panel on the ground, 2nd floor, and 25 square meters of KON), without the Plaintiff’s restoration to the original state, and ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the building extended without permission under Article 79 of the Building Act on May 26, 2014, and September 4, 2014; however, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2015, which issued a non-performance penalty of KRW 38,365,00 pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2015.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant building constitutes a kindergarten under Article 2 subparag. 9 (a) of the Housing Act, which is a kindergarten under Article 2 subparag. 9 (a) of the Housing Act, and welfare facilities under the Housing Act. The Plaintiff’s extension of the instant building without the Defendant’s permission is the same as before the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 13474, Aug. 11, 20

Article 42 (2) 2 of the former Housing Act is violated, and according to Article 101 (3) 5 of the former Housing Act, the defendant can impose an administrative fine not exceeding five million won on the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the defendant's act of extending the plaintiff's unauthorized permission violates Article 11 (1) of the Building Act and Article 80 of the Building Act.