1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On March 3, 2010, the instant disposition Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land C Site 252.2 square meters and the instant ground reinforced concrete structure (framed) and Class 2 neighborhood living facilities of the fourth floor (hereinafter “instant building”).

(No. 1/2) On May 1, 2013, the Defendant discovered that the 3rd floor of the instant building, 22.5 square meters, and 27.4 square meters of the 4th floor of the instant building (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the portion of the instant building without permission”) had been extended without permission.

Accordingly, on July 8, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiffs to correct the above violations until August 20, 2015, and the Plaintiffs did not comply therewith.

On August 31, 2015, the Defendant again ordered the Plaintiffs to correct the above violation until September 21, 2015, and notified the Plaintiffs that the enforcement fine will be imposed if the correction is not made within the said period.

On October 8, 2015, the Defendant imposed a enforcement fine of KRW 5,123,80 on the part of KRW 4,207,500 for the enforcement fine of KRW 22.5 square meters on the third floor and KRW 27.4 square meters for the fourth floor pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s 1, 2, and 4 evidence, Eul’s 1-7 evidence (including additional numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiffs is unlawful for the following reasons.

1. The non-existence of the grounds for imposition of charges in this case was the time of the construction of the building of this case, not the plaintiffs extended.

The Plaintiffs did not state any violation in the building ledger at the time of the purchase of the instant building, and trust and purchase it only.

After the Defendant registered the preservation of ownership on February 24, 2005, it neglected to perform its duties until March 2010, 2010 before the Plaintiffs acquire it, and until the time when the Plaintiffs notify that it is a non-compliant building, and was unaware of whether the instant building was a non-compliant building, and 12 years have passed since the completion thereof.