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 is the owner of the building of Jeju-si Blue Cdong (Ddong) retail store (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff installed metal structures at the entrance part of the instant building (hereinafter “instant structure”).

B. On December 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order ordering the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant structure by January 12, 2017, on the ground that the act of installing the instant structure constitutes an unauthorized extension of a building (an extension area of 16.72 square meters) without filing a construction report under Article 14 of the Building Act.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff did not comply with the above corrective order, the Defendant, on March 24, 2017, ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant structure until April 7, 2017, and ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant structure, in writing, to impose and collect enforcement fines and take measures for accusation based on Article 80 of the Building Act when the Plaintiff did not comply with the order.

Nevertheless, on June 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 2,405,00 as enforcement fine to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number in the case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The structure of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a structure that temporarily covers a tent only when it is accompanied by a concentrated rain or strong wind, and is separate from the building of this case. This does not constitute a building under the Building Act. Thus, the Plaintiff issued a corrective order to remove the building by deeming it as an illegal extension, and further, the Defendant imposed a charge for compelling the performance on the ground of nonperformance.