logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.20 2016누74127
이행강제금 부과처분 취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

On August 19, 2015, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff, “The following buildings owned by the Plaintiff violate the lawful permission and reporting under the Building Act (unauthorized permission), and the Defendant implemented the procedure for approval for use under the lawful permission and reporting by September 17, 2015 pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act. In the event of failure to comply with the said period, the Defendant’s notification that administrative measures, such as filing an accusation and charges for compelling performance, are inevitable under Articles 108 (Article 111) and 80(1) of the Building Act (Article 108 (Article 11).”

B On October 13, 2015, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff the same “the period of voluntary correction of a building without permission,” in addition to setting the period of voluntary correction up until November 12, 2015, the remainder “the implementation order of voluntary correction of a building without permission and the pre-announcement of imposition of a non-performance penalty (2).”

On November 24, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 8,050,000 for enforcement fines (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and all violations of the Building Act in this case, claiming that the disposition of the whole purport of the pleadings is legitimate, were committed in 1988. However, considering special circumstances to deem that the transitional provision of Article 6 of the Addenda to the amended Building Act is not effective despite the amendment of the former Building Act, enforcement fines may not be imposed pursuant to Article 80 of the current Building Act, and ② pursuant to Article 12 of the Addenda to the current Building Act, a fine for negligence shall be imposed on a building which has already been committed in violation of the former Building Act pursuant to Article 56-2 of the former Building Act, and the enforcement fines shall not be imposed pursuant to Article 80 of the current Building Act. Thus

The Building Act of this case.

arrow