1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff reconstructed a building of 62.23 square meters (a single house type; hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground B of ASEAN-si, Asan-si without reporting.

B. On October 26, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore the instant building to its original state on the ground that the instant building was constructed in violation of Article 14 of the Building Act, and issued a corrective order to the effect that enforcement fines will be imposed if the instant building was not implemented.

C. As the Plaintiff did not comply with the above enforcement order, on May 30, 2016, the Defendant imposed KRW 2,865,000 on the instant building on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 14; the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following: (a) an executive officer of the Jeondong Lease Co., Ltd., who is the actual owner of the Plaintiff’s land in Busan City, consented to repair old houses on the above land; and (b) no building was reconstructed without reporting; (c) even if the grounds for disposal exist, the Plaintiff’s ground for reconstruction of the building was old; and (d) the Plaintiff’s difficult economic situation, etc., the instant disposition was deemed to have

B. 1) In an administrative litigation as to whether a ground for disposition exists or not, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is not binding on the facts established in a criminal trial, and even if not, the fact that a criminal judgment is found guilty on the same factual basis becomes a flexible evidence in the administrative litigation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be acknowledged that it is difficult to adopt a criminal judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 1999). B.