1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s charges for compelling the performance against the Plaintiff on August 23, 2010 KRW 72,206,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of a house and a neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant main building”) with a share of 98/252 in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large 827.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”), and two cement brick structure, brick structure, cement roof, and ground-based 2 stories in cement, brick structure, and apartment and apartment living facilities (5.02 square meters in a multi-story house, 80.89 square meters in general, 31.31 square meters in a multi-story house, hereinafter “instant main building”).

B. On March 15, 2010, the Defendant discovered that the 316 square meters of the panel and the temporary building of wooden structure, which is linked to the left side of the main building in the instant case and the rear side, were used as a restaurant by extending it to the 316 square meters of the temporary building of wooden structure (hereinafter “instant violating building”) without permission or reporting, and then, on the 19th day of the same month, the Defendant discovered that the building

4. The first corrective order until December 26, 200 to voluntarily remove the violating building of this case, and the same year.

5. 18. The same year;

6. By the fifteenth day, the second corrective order was issued to voluntarily remove the violating building of this case.

C. The Plaintiff did not remove the instant violating structure, and the Defendant did not remove the instant violating structure on July 6, 2010 to the Plaintiff on the same year.

7. The same year after the warning was given that the enforcement fine will be imposed if the non-compliance building of this case is not voluntarily removed until 26.

8. 23. On May 30, 201, the Plaintiff imposed KRW 72,206,00 on the charge for compelling compliance pursuant to Article 80 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 10755, May 30, 201; hereinafter the same).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful.

1. The part of the main building of this case and the part of the site of this case, which was owned by the plaintiff, was not owned by the plaintiff without permission of the plaintiff.