beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The Defendant imposed enforcement fines of KRW 1,298,250 on the Plaintiff as of February 2, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of the disposition (based on recognition), entry of Gap 1-3, entry of Eul 1-4, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
A. The Plaintiff is the co-owner (share 1/2) of a wooden house (hereinafter “instant building”) with a total floor area of 36.03 square meters and legally recorded in the building ledger, located on the land outside Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
B. On November 24, 2014 and December 29, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the panel/protruding building attached to the instant building (hereinafter “instant appurtenant building”) constitutes a non-compliant building (25.5 square meters in size) that did not obtain permission or report under the Building Act, and issued a prior notice to the Plaintiff on January 21, 2015, to impose a non-performance penalty for correction of the violation.
C. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) measured the non-violation area of the instant appurtenant building; (b) revised it into 15 square meters; and (c) issued a disposition imposing KRW 1,298,250 on the Plaintiff on the same day on the same day on the grounds that the non-violation of the instant appurtenant building was illegal (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is the part included in the instant building, which was constructed on or before April 8, 1982, which was the base date when the Seoul Special Metropolitan City took measures to train the existing unauthorized buildings, or was erroneously constructed due to defective equipment, and is also included in the building of this case, which is a legitimate building, and thus, is not subject to enforcement fines. ② Even if it is subject to enforcement fines, the size of the violation does not exceed 15 square meters, and ③ even if the Plaintiff knew of the violation and purchased the instant appurtenant building around 2008, it is against the principle of trust protection to levy enforcement fines for the first time after the Defendant purchased the instant appurtenant building.
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.
3. The plaintiff is disputing the existence and scope of the violation area.