logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2011.05.12 2010구합6800
건축물위반이행강제금부과처분무효확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s acquisition process of the instant building and the use of the instant building, etc. (1) Seoul brightness Credit Union currently designated as a general social welfare center in accordance with the first-class district unit planning of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, 222, 199, on the ground of Sungnam-si, the 2nd underground floor and the 5th floor above the ground (hereinafter “instant building”), and constructed the main purpose on the general building ledger as social welfare facilities.

6.3. That approval for use has been obtained, and that year;

8. 18. The main purpose of the instant building was indicated and corrected as educational research and welfare facilities, and leased it to the Plaintiff, etc.

(2) After that, as Seoul brightness Credit Union did not honor, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid on June 200 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building in its name on April 26, 2001.

(3) On the general building registry, the detailed purpose of the instant building was the parking lot, mechanical room, the second underground floor was the swimming pool, the bath, the water treatment room, the first underground floor was the welfare space, the assembly room, the office, the second floor was the children’s room, the aged’s room, the aged’s room, the third to five floors above the ground, and the rooftop was the water tank room. However, the Plaintiff started to use the instant building for the purpose of the laboratory, the lecture room or the students’ lodging room immediately after the lease of the instant building or at least after the successful bid.

B. (1) On September 13, 2002, the defendant used the building of this case against the plaintiff in violation of the purpose on the building ledger. Since then, the extension of the due date upon the plaintiff's request for extension of the period of voluntary restoration, and the order for voluntary restoration and its urging have been repeated.

(2) Around July 23, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the building ledger on the ground level 1, 3, and 5 floors of the instant building.

arrow