1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned a building located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 80-6 (hereinafter “instant building”) and leased the first floor of the instant building.

B. On December 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a charge for compelling compliance amounting to 25,616,250 won (an amount calculated by adding 50% by recognizing the charge for compelling compliance to KRW 17,616,250 as the charge for compelling compliance to be for profit-making purposes in accordance with Article 80(1) and (2) of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff, on September 21, 2016, ordering the Plaintiff to take corrective measures again on November 1, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The notice of imposition of enforcement fines as of December 15, 2016, issued by the Defendant in violation of Article 80(3) and (4) of the Building Act, and the instant disposition was conducted without specifying in writing the criteria for calculating enforcement fines, details of calculation, grounds for aggravation, aggravated grounds, the degree of increase, methods of raising an objection to enforcement fines, and other methods of raising an objection and raising an objection to enforcement fines. Accordingly, the instant disposition should be deemed unlawful in violation of Article 80(3) and (4) of the Building Act. (2) The Plaintiff, who did not have an increased reason for enforcement fines, is a public institution designated as a quasi-government institution under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy under the Act on the Management of Public Institutions for the Prevention and Restoration of Mining Damage.

Therefore, since the instant building cannot be deemed to have changed its use for profit, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

3. Grounds for reduction of enforcement fines.