1. The plaintiff B's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central District Building C (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) On December 10, 2014, the enforcement fine was imposed in KRW 24,323,00 for non-performance penalty in December 10, 2014 by applying the structural index of “Cement Article” to the part of the instant building in 2004, where the Defendant discovered the unauthorized reconstruction of the second floor of 151.57 square meters and the extension of the second floor of 7.2 square meters for the second floor among the instant building in 2004, and on this ground, the Defendant imposed KRW 24,323,00 for non-performance penalty in December 10, 2014 by applying the structural index of “Cement Article” to the part of the instant violation.

(hereinafter “Initial Disposition”). On December 16, 2014, Plaintiff B knew of the initial disposition.

Plaintiff

B filed an administrative appeal against the initial disposition on March 17, 2015, and asserted that the amount of enforcement fines was not considered according to the share ownership of the instant building in the process of calculating the amount of enforcement fines. Accordingly, on April 16, 2015, the Defendant divided the area of the said part of violation into the shares owned by the Plaintiffs and issued a corrective notice of the amount of KRW 8,108,000 for the initial disposition against the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Corrective notice against the Plaintiff”) and imposed KRW 16,215,00 for enforcement fines against the Plaintiff A.

(hereinafter “Disposition imposing enforcement fines against Plaintiff A”). On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff B withdrawn the above administrative appeal claim against the initial disposition.

On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal against Plaintiff B, subject to a correction notice and a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty against Plaintiff A, and both were dismissed on July 13, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where the amount of a non-performance penalty is reduced on the grounds of defects in the disposition imposing a non-performance penalty after the administrative agency imposed the non-performance penalty upon the Plaintiff B’s legitimate action, the reduced disposition has legal effect only on the reduced non-performance penalty.