All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to whether the charge imposed in 2008, 2009, and 2010 becomes null and void (Defendant’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 through 6)

A. (1) For the purpose of invalidation of an administrative disposition, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient. The defect must be objectively obvious and serious as it violates the important part of the law. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself.

(2) In a case where an administrative disposition was taken by an administrative agency with respect to certain legal relations or facts by applying the provisions of a law, and where there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the law because the legal principle that no application of the law is explicitly revealed, with respect to such legal relations or facts, if there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the law, it is merely a mistake in the fact of the disposition requirements, and it cannot be said that the defect is evident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da68485, Oct. 15, 2004). However, even though the meaning of the requirements for the disposition under the language and text of the law is clear, the administrative agency’s erroneous interpretation of the meaning without a reasonable ground, and as a result, it cannot be said that there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the law because the legal principle is not clearly revealed if the pertinent disposition was taken without satisfying the requirements

(2) According to Article 79(1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 12701, May 28, 2014; hereinafter the same), a permitting authority shall grant a building owner, contractor, on-site manager, owner, manager, or occupant (hereinafter referred to as “owner, etc.”) who violates this Act or an order issued or disposition taken under this Act.