1. The Defendant’s corrective order against the Plaintiff on November 19, 2019 to restore the violation of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act to its original state, and on March 18, 2020.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 24, 2018, the Plaintiff is a housing management operator who entered into a collective housing consignment management contract with the council of occupants' representatives of 14 Dong-dong 1,382 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the contract period from May 13, 2018 to May 12, 2020, and is the managing body under the Multi-Family Housing Management Act.

B. On November 19, 2019, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate the instant apartment building in violation of Article 35(1) of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 94(1) of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 35(1) of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act by extending the room room without obtaining a consent of at least 2/3 of the occupants (18 square meters) and removing the ceiling and the non-proof bearing wall without permission, and changing the use of the room room to the Kapeta (the period of use from December 18, 2018 to July 31, 2019).

(hereinafter “instant corrective order”). C.

On March 18, 2020, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 1,908,000 for compelling the performance of a building in violation of the Building Act to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant corrective order.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 First, the alteration of the use of the studio of the apartment of this case, which was caused by the defendant's correction order of this case, was decided and implemented together with D by the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case. The plaintiff was excluded in the process of decision-making or execution

Nevertheless, the defendant issued the corrective order of this case on the ground that the plaintiff violated Article 35 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, which is erroneous or legal principles.