1. The part against the Plaintiff regarding confirmation of invalidation under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 2002, the Plaintiff newly constructed cement brickd housing (area 122.15 square meters; hereinafter “instant housing”) and lightweight steel frame storage (area 48.02 square meters; hereinafter “instant warehouse”) on the ground of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Land (divided into D and B around January 3, 2012).

B. On the ground that “the instant house and warehouse violated Article 56 (Permission for Development Act), Article 11 (Building Permission), and Article 14 (Building Report) of the Building Act,” the Defendant issued a first corrective order on January 19, 2012, the second corrective order on February 22, 2012, and the charge for compelling the performance on April 5, 2012, and imposed the Plaintiff KRW 20,063,00 (the instant house and warehouse KRW 18,750,000) for occasional charges for compelling the performance on June 1, 2012 (the instant warehouse 1,313,00).

C. The Defendant imposed upon the Plaintiff the first corrective order on September 16, 2013, the second corrective order on October 16, 2013, the second corrective order on the charge for compelling the performance on November 12, 2013, and the charge for compelling the performance on the part of November 27, 2013 (the instant house and warehouse KRW 18,261,00,000, and the warehouse 1,221,000,00 for the regular charge for compelling the performance on December 27, 2013 (the instant warehouse 18,261,00,000, and the instant warehouse 1,221,000).

The Defendant imposed enforcement fines of KRW 1,233,00 on the instant warehouse on the Plaintiff on December 30, 2014, and KRW 1,198,000 on November 18, 2015, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case" by referring to the imposition of charges for compelling the performance of this case). [The grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 19, 23, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 14, and 18 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 did not specifically present the grounds and reasons for the disposition to the plaintiff while rendering each of the dispositions of this case. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case is procedural defect.