1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building B (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 28, 2009, the Defendant discovered the fact that a building of 15 square meters is constructed without permission on the second floor of the instant building, and notified the Plaintiff of the corrective order and the imposition of a non-performance penalty on several occasions. However, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose a non-performance penalty under Article 80 of the Building Act on the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff did not comply

C. Even after the Plaintiff maintained the portion constructed without permission, the Defendant issued a voluntary corrective order around February 25, 2014 and around March 21, 2014.

On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order, and the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a charge for compelling the performance of KRW 4,905,00 in accordance with Article 80 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 to 11 (including each number), the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On June 28, 2011, the Defendant promised that a total of 30% of the total floor area can be extended when remodeling is conducted through the “written notice on the designation of the non-economic region remodeling promotion zone.”

In such a case, 15 square meters of the Plaintiff's unauthorized extension of the building is legitimate, so the imposition of enforcement fines is unlawful.

The Plaintiff used a large amount of expenses for preparation for remodeling with the belief of the above undertaking.

However, the defendant did not file an application for a plan to change the district unit necessary for remodeling on the ground that there is no budget, but rather imposed a charge for compelling compliance.

The defendant did not impose a non-performance penalty in 2011 and 2012.

This also goes against the principle of trust protection.

For this reason, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The instant disposition 1 is with the Building Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.