1. The Defendant’s imposition of enforcement fines of KRW 34,574,00 against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2012 on the ground that the Defendant did not extend the enforcement fines without permission.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, upon obtaining a building permit from the Defendant on May 201, newly constructed a reinforced concrete structure (refinite concrete roof), three floors, detached houses, and first class neighborhood living facilities, one-story retail store, 82.5 square meters, two-story multi-household multi-household multi-family housing, 135.24 square meters, and 14.35 square meters in multi-family housing on a third-story multi-household multi-family housing on the ground of 251.2 square meters in Asan-si, Do.

(hereinafter “instant building”). (b)

The Plaintiff made a large-scale repair by increasing the number of households of 2 and 3 stories of the instant building without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

(hereinafter referred to as the “large-scale repair of this case”) and, after drilling part of the 3rd floor and the 3rd floor of the roof of this case where the closed space had been installed, the closed part of the 1.8m or more of the sloping roof is opened, and the inner wooden stairs connecting the 3rd floor with the roof are installed, the roof floor was added to the 3rd floor.

(hereinafter “instant extension”). C.

On August 16, 2011, the Defendant issued a corrective order ordering the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove and restore the parts of the instant large-scale repair and extension, and upon the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with it, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing KRW 34,574,000 for enforcement fines ( KRW 4,864,00 for large-scale repair: KRW 4,864,00 for extension: KRW 29,710,00 for extension) by applying Article 80 of the Building Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The current base value, which serves as the basis for calculating the charge for compelling the performance of the instant large-scale repair, of the charge for compelling the performance of the instant large-scale repair, ought to be calculated by multiplying the standard market value of new buildings by 20%, which is the corresponding index. Nevertheless, the Defendant imposed the charge for compelling the performance of the instant large-scale repair on the basis of the standard market value of new buildings without multiplying the pertinent index, which is unlawful. (2) The charge for compelling the performance of the instant extension is on three floors without changing the form outside