1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff regarding the order to revoke the above additional amount shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "the instant disposition imposing a non-performance penalty" in the second part of the judgment of the first instance is as "the instant disposition imposing a non-performance penalty"; "371,730,370" in the third part of the fifth part is "371,730,370 won"; "39,49,580 won" in the 19th part is "14,95,920 won"; "51,948,000" in the second part of the second part of the judgment of the second part is as "51,948,000 won"; and "the 51,948,000 won" in the 6th part is as "the 51,948,00 won"

(1)(b), (c), and (2);

D. Each of the paragraphs (3) is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal as follows. As such, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The appellate judgment No. 2-D in the part of the first instance judgment.

(1)Paragraphs (b) and (c) shall be advanced as follows:

【The Defendant asserted that the disposition imposing the instant charge for compelling compliance is legitimate, since Article 16 of the Building Act provides that a project owner should obtain permission from the competent permitting authority or report to the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, Special Self-Governing Province Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu before changing the matters permitted or reported under Article 11 or 14, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, although the Plaintiff did not follow such procedures, the disposition imposing the charge for compelling compliance is lawful.

However, Article 80(1) of the Building Act, which stipulates enforcement fines for a violation of the Building Act, provides that where a building is constructed in excess of the building-to-land ratio or the floor area ratio under Articles 55 and 56 of the Building Act, the amount equivalent to 50% of the statutory standard price for the illegally extended area may be imposed as enforcement fines for a violation of Article 80(1)1.