1. The Defendant’s imposition of enforcement fines exceeding KRW 4,603,00,00, imposed on the Plaintiff on December 2, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 8, 200, the Plaintiff, who was the owner of land in the Changwon-si, Msan-si, and C, designated as a development-restricted zone, extended the 15 square meters of a prefabricated panel structure warehouse (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) to the 2nd floor building (Class II neighborhood living facilities and detached houses) located in the above B, which was newly constructed with a building permit granted on November 8, 200, and newly constructed the 72 square meters of a lightweight structure building on the above C’s ground (Class II neighborhood living facilities; hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff did not obtain a building permit or file a building report thereon.

B. On April 15, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order demanding the Plaintiff to correct unlawful matters, such as voluntary removal, on the ground that “the Plaintiff extended the instant warehouse without permission around 2002, and newly constructed the instant building without permission around 2012.” Upon notification of the corrective promotion district on May 19, 2014 and the charge for compelling the performance on June 26, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order on December 2, 2014 pursuant to Articles 30 and 30-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”), the charge for compelling the performance is KRW 7,807,00 [the standard market price for the instant warehouse 607,00 (162,00 won per square meter per construction year, per one square meter), and the standard market price for each use of neighborhood facilities.

】 Standard market price of the instant building 7,200,000 won (20,000 won per square meter standard market price per 2,00,000 won) for the size of violation 】 15 square meters 】 Imposition rate of 25/100,000 won, and the classification factory storage facilities by use.

The instant disposition was taken to impose the imposition rate of 50/100) of x 72 square meters of the violating area.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2, 3, 5, 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was newly constructed around 2003 in order to use the instant building as a warehouse that keeps agricultural instruments, etc., and replaced the roof tent for the repair of facilities around 2012.