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 reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the disposition are as follows: (a) the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “no later than June 2, 2014, which is the final payment date,” and (b) the part “no more than 18,” and (c) the second part to the last part (hereinafter “1. basic fact part”) except that the time limit for filing a lawsuit is too excessive and that it is unlawful, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant demand was not served, and that the instant demand was served on the date of December 2013, and that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit via the procedure of objection and administrative appeal.

B. According to Article 80(6) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 13471, Aug. 11, 2015); Articles 8 and 19 of the Act on the Collection, etc. of Local Non-Tax Revenue, and Article 23 of the National Tax Collection Act, where a person subject to a disposition of imposing a non-performance penalty fails to pay the non-performance penalty within the specified period, he/she may urge the person to pay the non-performance penalty, and if he/she fails to pay the non-performance penalty within the specified period, he/she may collect the non-performance penalty in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default of local non-performance penalty. In such case, the first demand for the payment of the non-performance penalty can be an administrative disposition subject to appeal as a disposition of collection (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14507, Dec. 24, 2009). The latter demand for the same demand is a pre-disposition for the disposition on default, which is a prerequisite for the interruption of the extinctive period, but merely

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Nu119 delivered on July 13, 199). Meanwhile, in the case of an administrative disposition against which the other party exists, barring any special provision.