1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 15, 2014, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 21,381,00 for enforcement fines (hereinafter “instant enforcement fines”), and KRW 3,39,480 for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant: (b) the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant building, occupied 95 square meters of the instant road, among the roads maintained by the city, on the ground that the instant building was newly constructed without a construction permit; (c) the Defendant imposed indemnity of KRW 3,39,480 for the damages (the target period: from September 16, 2012 to December 31, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply as indicated in the calculation basis; hereinafter the same shall apply).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (hereinafter “Dongdae-gu Office”) issued a statement that the public official in charge of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (hereinafter “Dongdae-gu Office”) would not take any measures after the construction of the instant building in order to improve the aesthetic view for the World Cup in 2001, and to remove the previous building and the open door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door

Therefore, the imposition of enforcement fine of this case is unlawful.

(2) Around 2005, E, who is a public official in charge of the Dongdaemun-gu Office office, ordered that only a part of the instant building would not be subject to the imposition or removal of indemnity, and the Plaintiff would not be subject to the imposition or removal of indemnity. Since the Plaintiff trusted this, the instant disposition of imposition of indemnity was unlawful since it violated the principle of trust protection.

B. (1) The Plaintiff did not obtain a construction permit.