1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 4,709,210 on the Plaintiff on December 20, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building B in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “instant building”). On December 20, 2013, the Defendant imposed KRW 4,709,210 on the charge for compelling the performance on the ground that the Plaintiff installed a cooking facility in the instant building, which is a multi-user house, and changed the purpose of use to a multi-family house without permission.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, A 3, and B 1-1 through 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion by the parties concerned: since there is no obligation to obtain a separate permit or file an application for change of the purpose of use of multi-family house to multi-family house, the instant disposition is unlawful.

According to Article 2 (2) 1 of the Building Act, and Article 3-4 [Attachment Table 1] 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the apartment house cannot be operated with cooking facilities. Thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. According to Article 19(2), (3), and (4) subparag. 8 of the Building Act, and Article 3-4 [Attachment 1] subparag. 1, Article 14(4)1, and Article 14(5) subparag. 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, when changing the use of multi-family housing to multi-family housing, it can be determined that the change of the use of multi-family housing does not require the competent authorities to obtain permission from the competent authorities, or to file

Even if cooking facilities were installed in multiple houses, it cannot be said that such acts constitute extension, reconstruction, large-scale repair, or alteration of the purpose of use of buildings, and whether such acts require permission, reporting, or application for alteration of entry, etc., without immediately referring to Article 2(2) of the Building Act and Article 3-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff installed cooking facilities in the instant building, it cannot be viewed as an unlawful alteration of use, and only such fact alone is Article 2(2) of the Building Act and Article 3 of the Building Act.