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 third floor building located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant issued a corrective order to correct the violation on August 26, 2015, on the ground that the area of 5.78 square meters (hereinafter “instant extension”) among the three floors of the instant building was extended without having undergone a construction report under Article 14 of the Building Act. On October 13, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to impose and collect charges for compelling compliance and a notice of imposition of charges for compelling compliance on the ground that the said violation was not corrected on the ground that the said violation was not corrected. On December 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to impose charges for compelling compliance and a notice of imposition of charges for compelling compliance on the ground that the said violation was not corrected.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On December 22, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 21, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Article 60(3) of the Building Act with respect to the restriction on the height of the Plaintiff’s alleged building (the Plaintiff asserts that it is Article 51 of the Building Act, but the Plaintiff’s assertion of error, and appears to be Article 60(3) of the Building Act) was abolished on May 18, 2015, so that the Plaintiff may obtain permission for the extension of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to obtain permission because the restriction on height did not delete the restriction items in the district unit plan, although the Plaintiff intended to obtain permission through the procedures prescribed in the Building Act, and the district unit plan (amended) with respect to the restriction on the height of the Plaintiff’s alleged building was publicly notified on June 30, 2016, so the Plaintiff was legally able to obtain permission for the extension of this case.

Ultimately, the defendant has abolished Article 60(3) of the Building Act relating to the restriction on the height.