1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B was the owner of the 1st floor building of Jung-gu Seoul Central District Office’s Ground C and Pyeongtaek-gu Living Facilities (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff Company purchased the instant building from B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 2, 2015.

B. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant discovered the fact that the instant building, which was the first floor as a result of the survey conducted by the Defendant around August 19, 2014, was illegally expanded to the steel structure of the second floor.

C. On November 2014, the Defendant issued an order to take corrective measures, such as removing a building by November 9, 2014, to B, the owner of the instant building. D.

On December 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to remove the building up to December 13, 2014 to B and the Plaintiff representative director D to take corrective measures, such as removing the building up to December 13, 2014.

E. On December 24, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 32,528,000 for a non-performance penalty on B based on Article 80 of the Building Act on the ground that the Defendant failed to comply with the corrective order within the corrective period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the payer of the disposition in this case may recognize the facts described as Eul, and in other words, Article 79 of the Building Act provides that "if a building is in violation of this Act, the permission-granting authority may order the owner, contractor, field manager, manager, or occupant of the building to take necessary measures, such as removal of the building, fixing a reasonable period." Accordingly, the defendant issued a corrective order under Article 79 (1) of the Building Act to B who is the owner of the building in this case, and imposed a non-performance penalty on B pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act.