1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties:

The Plaintiff is the owner of a housing and a building for neighborhood living facilities (the first floor area is 80.89 square meters; hereinafter “instant main building”) with 98/252 shares in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and 827.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) and with the second floor of the instant site and the second floor of the mentmen, brick, and the ground of the instant site.

B. On March 15, 2010, the Defendant discovered a panel and a building without permission for extension of wood materials on the left and back of the back of a series of main building in the instant case (hereinafter “instant violating building”) on the left and back of the lower sides of the building, and discovered the same year.

3. 19.19.

5. 18. The Plaintiff issued a corrective order for voluntary removal of illegal buildings twice to the Plaintiff.

C. Nevertheless, the correction is not made, and the defendant, on July 6, 2010, issued a prior notice of the imposition of the charge for compelling the performance and issued the same year.

8. 23. The instant charge for compelling the performance was imposed on KRW 72,206,00 (the standard market price of the building taxation x 457,000 square meters x 316 square meters x 50/100).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and C jointly own the instant site on the registry, but in fact, the Plaintiff specified 98 square meters in the main building of this case and 154 square meters in the part of the main building of this case and 154 square meters in each of them. Accordingly, the Plaintiff leased 98 square meters in each of the main building of this case and 98 square meters in each of the instant site to D, and the instant violating buildings are located in the sectional ownership of C.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff did not construct the violating building of this case, and is not an owner or an occupant, and even is not the owner of the land, and thus there is no authority to remove the violating building of this case.

Therefore, the corrective order issued to the plaintiff who does not have any authority to implement the corrective order and the disposition of this case on the ground of non-performance is unfair.

Even if the instant violating building is deemed owned by the Plaintiff, the instant main building and the instant violating building.