logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.09.09 2016구단510
건축법위반 이행강제부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

C. The Plaintiff issued a corrective order on February 6, 2015 and March 20, 2015, confirming that the warehouse, etc. of the prefabricated Panel Group on the second floor and the first floor of the instant marina building is an unauthorized extension (a total of 213.84 square meters), and issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on March 20, 2015.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the above corrective order, the Defendant issued a notice of correction promotion and imposition of enforcement fines to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2015, and issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 40,715,130 for enforcement fines on December 3, 2015.

The Defendant’s ground for calculation of enforcement fines of this case is as follows.

Current base value = Standard value of new construction of a building 】 structural index 】 structural index 】 position index 】 residual value index 】 special cases for increase or decrease 】 increase or decrease ratio (extension, large-scale repair, etc.) 】 Amount equivalent to 50/100 of the standard market value of one square meter applicable to the relevant building 】 Area in violation 】 Structure size - prefabricated panel division (in 0.5) - (in 0.045 * year elapsed : 1.2) - Location of neighborhood living facilities (in : 2,500 to 3,00 (in : 1.15), calculation method : 650,000,000 of the base value of new building 】 the base value index of the structural value index 】 the amount of charges for compelling compliance 148,000,0000 won in violation of the reduction of the statutory base value of the building, the officially announced value of the relevant panel 205,14,2005

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on December 4, 2015, but was dismissed on January 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case’s extension without permission is a place where a building is inevitably constructed and used as a warehouse due to a narrow store, and its structure or durability falls considerably compared to other buildings, and its construction cost or monetary value is very low.

arrow