logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.10.13 2013구단50855
기타이행강제금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation in the litigation is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) as the owner of the building on five lots outside Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, and five lots of land (2,252.98 square meters in the second floor, 2,337.5 square meters in the third floor, 2,337.4 square meters in the third floor, 403.4 square meters in the fourth floor, 240.16 square meters in the rooftop, hereinafter “instant building”).

B. According to the building ledger, the main purpose of the instant building is “ neighborhood living facilities, cultural and assembly facilities,” and the current purpose of the building is the first floor, third floor, general restaurant, and second floor, “other exhibition centers.”

C. The Defendant discovered that the supplementary intervenor, even though the use of the instant building was “general restaurants or other exhibition halls,” changed without permission, used the instant building as a wedding hall, and issued a corrective order on July 2, 2012 to the Plaintiff on the violation, and issued the notice of imposition of enforcement fines on November 1, 2012.

On January 21, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 630,103,000 for compelling the performance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the corrective order within the corrective period (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the first floor and the third floor of the instant building are operated as general restaurants for their intended purpose, and the restaurant is operated so that customers can enjoy food on their own in a restaurant and have customers enjoy a marriage ceremony, a frightt or a parte, etc., and are not used for the purpose of a wedding hall, etc.

The second floor of the building of this case is used for other exhibition halls.

The main purpose of the instant building is “cultural and assembly facilities” and it is used for wedding halls, exhibition halls, event halls, etc. in line with its purpose, and thus, it did not change its purpose without permission.

Among the instant buildings, the first and third floors of the building.

arrow