1. On October 12, 2018, the Defendant imposed KRW 277,756,00,00 on the Plaintiff’s charge for compelling compliance.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the B’s land (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building on the ground in Silung-si.

B. On October 25, 2016, the Defendant discovered a building illegal on the ground of this case during the on-site patrol, and issued the first corrective order to the Plaintiff on November 28, 2016 on the ground of Article 6-3 of the Special Act on Public Housing (Management, etc. of Special Management Areas), and issued a corrective order to the second illegal building on March 9, 2017.

On June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff did not comply with a corrective order within the period of voluntary improvement, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the charge for compelling the performance of a non-compliant building should be imposed in accordance with Article 6-5(2) of the Special Act on Public Housing and Article 30-2 of the "Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones"), if it is not restored within the said period to the original state voluntarily by August 17, 2018.

B A

C. On October 12, 2018, the Plaintiff did not restore the Plaintiff to its original state within the said period, and the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 453,436,00 on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The calculation details of enforcement fines are as indicated in the attached Form “the calculation details of enforcement fines.”

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 11, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant disposition is calculated by applying the usage index and residual rate as follows, and thus, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) The Defendant’s use index each of the buildings on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”).

When calculating enforcement fines, the use index was erroneously applied.

The defendant is against each of the buildings in this case.