1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion and is unlawful, taking into account the developments leading up to the Plaintiff’s rebuilding of the instant building, the Plaintiff’s age, contribution to the State, and economic circumstances.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The Defendant rendered the instant disposition as the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order to reconstruct the instant building and restore it to its original state for not less than seven months without reporting.

In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant calculated the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the standard market value of one square meter applied to the instant building pursuant to Article 80(1)1 of the Building Act, which was in force at the time of the disposition, by multiplying the amount corresponding to 50/100 by the size of the violating area. In accordance with Article 80(1)1 of the Building Act and Article 115-3(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the Defendant calculated the charge for compelling execution by multiplying the amount by 70/100 (in cases where construction was conducted without filing a report, the pertinent case is applicable) pursuant to Article 80(1) of the Building Act and Article 42(1) of the Building Ordinance of Busan City, by 1/2 (the corresponding charge

As such, the instant disposition imposing enforcement fines calculated in accordance with the standards set by the law at the time of the instant disposition was rendered, as the Defendant issued a corrective order with a reasonable period fixed to the Plaintiff and did not comply therewith. Therefore, even considering the various circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to conclude that the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and it is just.