1. The Defendant’s imposition of enforcement fines exceeding KRW 21,405,00,00, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on June 19, 2018, exceeds KRW 19,362,835.

Details of the disposition

On October 25, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 234 square meters in B warehouse sites in Gyeyang-si, Nam-si (hereinafter “instant warehouse site”) and 118.75 square meters in storage facilities of single-storys of the general steel structure on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) and C orchard 895 square meters (hereinafter “instant orchard”) in total with the warehouse sites in the instant case.

On January 4, 2018, the Defendant issued a prior notice under the Administrative Procedures Act to the Plaintiff on January 23, 2018, and subsequently changed the use of the instant building to a detached house without permission, and issued a corrective order (hereinafter “instant corrective order”) under Article 30 of the same Act on the ground that the instant land violates Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”) by changing the form and quality of 100 square meters among the instant land to a site without permission.

Since the Defendant failed to comply with the instant corrective order within the corrective period prescribed by the instant corrective order, on May 3, 2018, the Defendant issued a pre-announcement of imposition of enforcement fines, and on June 19, 2018, imposed enforcement fines of KRW 21,405,00 on the Plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is unlawful since the Plaintiff sold the instant land and buildings to D on September 3, 2018 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on November 2, 2018. Thus, it is impossible for the Plaintiff to restore the land to its original state by completing the registration of transfer of ownership on November 2, 2018. Thus, the disposition of this case, which imposed a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff, is unlawful.

(No. 1) Although the area changed to the form and quality of an access road among the land in this case is not less than 36 square meters, the defendant erred in changing the form and quality of the land as 100 square meters and charges for compelling the performance.