1. On April 9, 2018, the Defendant confirmed that imposition of KRW 25,859,000 for enforcement fines against the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each of the two to five-story parking lots (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) from among the buildings located in the building located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

B. The Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff, on November 16, 2016 and January 22, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff changed the use of 471.8 square meters among the instant parking lots to a neighborhood living facility without permission.

C. Subsequent to the foregoing corrective order, the Defendant’s order was not complied with, on March 7, 2018, imposed the charge for compelling the performance of a non-compliant building on the Plaintiff on the imposition of the charge for compelling the performance of the non-compliant building, and subsequently, on April 9, 2018, a written public notice stating that the charge for compelling the performance should be imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on April 12, 2018, but returned to the addressee’s unknown address. The Defendant served the instant disposition by public notice pursuant to Article 14(4) of the Administrative Procedures Act on April 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence No. 1-6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The main claim is as follows: (a) the defendant served the written disposition of this case on the plaintiff's previous domicile and returned it to the plaintiff's unknown address; (b) it served by public notice without confirming the plaintiff's resident registration address; and (c) the disposition of this case is illegal because it does not meet the requirements of service by public notice under Article 14 (4) of the Administrative Procedures Act, and thus the disposition of this case is null and void because it does not take effect; (a) the defendant served by public notice for the same reason as the disposition of this case, which is the prior procedure for the disposition of this case, even though the charge for compelling execution is imposed. Therefore, the disposition of this case which was made without a lawful notice