beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 13,206,00 for enforcement fines against the Plaintiff on October 7, 2015 shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. In the case of an aggregate building located on the ground B in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, 2013 (the 2nd floor is an office, and the 6th floor is a multi-household house), the Plaintiff’s aggregate of the size of the 2nd floor from 201 to 207 square meters in the 241.68 square meters in the 201st unit of the 2nd floor and the 241.68 square meters in the 2013 unit
‘Unauthorized change of use without reporting' has been used.
B. On March 27, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on the violation of Article 19 of the Building Act, stating the violation in the following table, and issued a final corrective order on June 5, 2015.
C
C. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 13,206,00 on the Plaintiff for a violation of the following table.
C
D. On October 7, 2015, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 13,206,00 on the Plaintiff for a violation of the Building Act on the ground that the correction pursuant to the above corrective order, etc. was not completed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. In rendering the instant disposition, the Plaintiff did not state the violation area, standard market price, and imposition rate, which are the basis for compelling execution, and did not directly examine the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the Local Tax Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, etc., and, if not, did not find the pertinent imposition rate, standard market price, etc., determination of illegality of the instant disposition
B. Since the violating building of this case changed the office to multi-family housing, its use should be considered as multi-family housing, and multi-family housing should be the area in violation of the household area. Since the defendant calculated the area in violation including the area of the corridor in addition to the exclusive use area of the household, the disposition of this case is made.