beta
Text
1. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 32,451,00,000 on Plaintiff A for a non-performance penalty.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the instant building No. 1 by combining the buildings listed in the table No. 1 attached to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant 1 building”), and Plaintiff B is the owner of the instant building No. 2 listed in the table No. 2 attached to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground (hereinafter referred to as “the building No. 2”).
B. The Defendant issued a corrective order to correct any violation on October 16, 2014, on the ground that the instant building Nos. 1 and 2 was constructed without obtaining permission or reporting from the Defendant, by November 18, 2014; issued a corrective order to correct the violation by November 21, 2014; issued a corrective order to correct the violation by December 12, 2014; issued a notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty on January 7, 2015; and issued a notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty on January 21, 2015 on the ground that the violation was not corrected on January 21, 2015; and imposed KRW 32,451,00, B00, and KRW 15,300,00 for a non-performance penalty on the ground that Article 80(1)1 and 2 of the Building Act attached Table Nos. 1 and 2 “the details of imposition of a non-performance penalty.”
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the disposition imposing enforcement fines.】 Each entry in Gap evidence, Eul evidence 1, Eul 3, 8 through 10 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The Defendant did not at all specify the grounds for calculating enforcement fines at the time of the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful. (2) Plaintiff A constructed the instant building by using a container existing around December 2013, and Plaintiff B constructed the instant building on around 2012 by using a container existing. Although Plaintiff B installed the instant building on around 2012, the Defendant calculated the enforcement fines for the instant building 1 and 2 on the premise that the instant building was constructed on the same date when calculating enforcement fines for the instant building 1 and 2.
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.
3. Buildings Nos. 1 and 2, which were the subject of the instant disposition.