1. The Defendant’s imposition of enforcement fines of KRW 2,149,00 against the Plaintiff on September 10, 2018 exceeds KRW 525,00,00.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff runs the waste collection and transportation business, such as recycling of waste paper in Mag Life-si B and making waste recyclable materials after recycling them.

B. On March 26, 2018, the Defendant conducted an on-site inspection on the Plaintiff’s place of business, and determined that the Plaintiff extended the building, altered the purpose of use, or installed a structure without permission or reporting as listed below, and notified the Plaintiff of a corrective order on April 9, 2018, and issued a corrective order on May 15, 2018, and issued a corrective order on August 7, 2018, and issued a notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2018. Nevertheless, on September 10, 2018, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 3,426,000 on the Plaintiff as stated below.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant’s above disposition. On February 18, 2019, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission ruled that it is reasonable to reduce the part of enforcement fines to 1/2 by applying reduction provisions to the part concerning the change of use among the Plaintiff’s violations.

The judgment was made to change the enforcement fine to KRW 2,149,00,00, as in the column for the charge for compelling the performance of the above disposition.

(hereinafter) The Defendant’s imposition of enforcement fines on September 10, 2018, which was partially revoked by an adjudication, as well as KRW 2,149,00,00 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition”), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence 1, and Eul’s evidence 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the instant disposition deemed that the wave screening period installed at the Plaintiff’s place of business constituted “other things similar thereto” among manufacturing facilities under Article 39(1)1 of the Building Bylaws in light of light lighting. However, the above wave screening method has the function of classifying the place of business collected by the Plaintiff according to the size of the strike.