1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Upon obtaining a construction permit on April 10, 201, the Plaintiff newly built a multi-family house of the first and third floors underground (hereinafter “multi-family house in this case”) on the land in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu, with approval for use on August 24, 2001.

B. The Plaintiff changed the structure of the first floor to four households under the instant multi-family house from one household to four households, and the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff was using the instant multi-family house by changing the structure of the first floor under the instant multi-family house, and imposed an enforcement fine every year from 2004 to 2017.

C. On September 19, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 1,576,020 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) a charge for compelling the performance by stipulating that “non-major repair-one household on an underground1st floor is four households”) is a violation.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 2002, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion changed one household into four households by installing partitionss on the first floor of the instant multi-family house in the instant multi-family house.

The plaintiff is to change the structure by installing a partition wall by extending it without dismantling the partition wall.

Such structural change was not included in substantial repair activity under Article 3-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 17926 of Feb. 24, 2003) which was enforced at the time, and only after the amended provision, it was included in substantial repair activity.

Therefore, the defendant's act of structural change is considered as an illegal large-scale repair and thus the revised law is retroactively applied, so it is an illegal disposition contrary to the principle of prohibition of retroactive effect.

B. First of all, the instant disposition is a principle prohibiting retroactive effect.