beta
Text
1. On September 19, 2017, the Defendant imposed KRW 9,249,00,00 on the Plaintiff’s charge for compelling compliance.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 17, 2012, the Plaintiff completed registration of initial ownership relating to the fourth floor of reinforced concrete structure B, Jung-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sung-gu (hereinafter “instant housing”), and thereafter made a large-scale repair of dividing three households in the instant building into six households by expanding the boundary walls within the instant housing without obtaining a construction permit under the Building Act from the competent authority at that time (hereinafter “instant large-scale repair”).
B. On September 19, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Building Act, but failed to correct illegal matters, on the grounds delineated above, on September 19, 2017, issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 33,970,00 (20,000,000 per base price of the building x 550.58 square meters x 0.1,000 square meters x 0.1,00 won x 0.1,000 won x (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. 1) The current base value, which serves as the basis for calculating enforcement fines on large-scale repair of the Plaintiff, includes not only tangible alteration of use, but also usage of buildings whose purpose of use has been altered under the Building Act, “standard for adjusting the current base value of buildings in 2017” under Article 80(1)2 of the Building Act, Article 4(2) of the Local Tax Act, and Article 4(1)1 and “the standard for adjusting the current base value of buildings in 2017”. Therefore, a building for which legitimate procedures for altering its use have not been completed continues to be unlawful until it is restored to its original state or completes lawful procedures for changing its use, and the legal nature of such unlawful state ought to be determined by the Building Act and subordinate statutes enforced at the time of the issue, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8072, Aug. 19, 201).