1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Basic facts

A. On July 12, 2001, the Plaintiff’s ASEAN and the Appointor (the Plaintiff’s spouse) completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 shares of each of the 1/2 shares of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Ground Buildings (hereinafter “instant buildings”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 shares of the aforementioned C on August 7, 2015.

B. On February 5, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order under Article 79 of the Building Act, on the second floor of the instant building, on the ground that the multi-use room of the multi-use room of the panel/new structure was extended to 10 square meters without filing a report under Article 14 of the Building Act. C and the designated parties corrected the illegality of the multi-use room on March 4, 2014.

C. However, since then, C and the designated parties re-explosive the multi-use room of the panel/ iron pipe structure without filing a report under Article 14 of the Building Act (hereinafter “multi-use room of this case”) by means of installing columns on the second floor of the instant building.

On the other hand, the second floor outer wall of the building of this case is installed with two square meters of a light-weight framed structure without reporting under Article 14 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant stairs”).

E. On August 12, 2014, and October 13, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order under Article 79 of the Building Act with respect to the multi-use rooms and stairs extended without permission to C and the designated parties, by erroneously specifying the area of the instant stairs as three square meters, and issued a corrective order under Article 79 of the same Act with respect to the multi-use rooms and stairs, which were extended without permission, and on December 12, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order with respect to C and the designated parties on December 12, 2014 following the pre-announcement of the charge for compelling performance, and imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 178,00 for multi-use rooms, KRW 139,00 for stairs, and KRW 317,00 for each of them (hereinafter “previous disposition”).

F. On January 14, 2015, C and the selector filed an appeal seeking revocation of the previous disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court No. 2015Gudan564, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing C and the selector’s claim on June 18, 2015 on the ground that the previous disposition is lawful.

G. C and the appointed parties shall be the instant case around June 9, 2015.