1. The part of the instant lawsuit dismissing the claim for revocation of the voluntary correction of a building in violation of the law.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The building on the ground B in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) was approved for use on April 24, 1976.

The Plaintiff is the owner who acquired the ownership of the instant building on May 2, 2003.

B. Upon the filing of a civil petition for unauthorized extension of the instant building on May 22, 2014, the Defendant’s public official’s on-site investigation revealed that the instant building had been expanded without permission by 19.5 square meters [2.5 square meters in the structure of the board/markets, 12 square meters in the board/building structure, 5 square meters in the main building of the board/building structure, 5 square meters in the board/market structure, hereinafter “instant extension portion”) among the instant buildings.

C. Accordingly, on May 24, 2014, the Defendant issued a prior notice to impose a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant extension portion was in violation of the lawful permission and reporting under the Building Act (unauthorized permission), and thus, ordered the Plaintiff to perform the procedure for use approval by voluntary removal or lawful permission and reporting by June 23, 2014 pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant order for implementation”) and issued a voluntary order for implementation of a building (unauthorized) by the deadline if failing to perform the order within the deadline, pursuant to Article 80(1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 13471, Aug. 11, 2015; hereinafter “former Building Act”). However, on July 8, 2014, the Defendant issued a prior notice to impose a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff on the implementation order (hereinafter “the instant order for implementation”) and again issued a voluntary order for implementation (hereinafter “the instant order for implementation”).

On October 25, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 2,902,00 for the enforcement fine under Article 80 of the former Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the procedure for approval for use by obtaining permission or filing a report pursuant to the Building Act when constructing the instant extension (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff.