1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic facts are based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff operates two-wheeled automobile rental business and restaurant in the name of E and F, the husband of D, the owner of the said land and building, in the building located on the ground C at Jeju-si (the first floor of Class I neighborhood living facilities of Class II neighborhood living facilities of the steel reinforced concrete structure, and the second floor of 116.43 square meters, 141.89 square meters; hereinafter “instant building”).

The Plaintiff illegally expanded the warehouse, rest room, neighborhood living facilities, etc. on the instant building as indicated in the following specifications of the building in violation of the following:

hereinafter referred to as “the portion of the building illegally extended by the Plaintiff” is referred to as “the building in violation of this case”, and specified by the sequences of the following details of the building.

(2) On July 8, 2011, 201, the Defendant voluntarily removed the buildings in violation of the Building Regulations Nos. 1 to 33, 201, 2009, 2009, 201, 3201, 4204, 844, 48.5, 2013, 48.7.5, on the ground that the Plaintiff extended the buildings in violation of the Building Regulations No. 1 to 3 without permission, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not remove the buildings by the deadline set on September 30, 201, 201, 12, 201, 201, 30, 2011, 200, 201, 200, 201, 201, 30, 201, 200, 201, 30,000,00).

On November 18, 2011, the Defendant imposed KRW 541,000 for the enforcement fine on the Plaintiff on November 18, 201 when the Plaintiff did not remove the illegal building in accordance with the said order, and “the first disposition of this case”.

The plaintiff was accused of the plaintiff to the Jeju Dong Police Station.

After November 25, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 541,000 to the enforcement fine.

Since then, the defendant was subject to the audit result that it was improper to impose a non-performance penalty on an illegal building at the time of the first half-yearly agency audit in 2012, and based on such result, it was calculated on November 20, 2012 in the above audit result by the plaintiff.