1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the third floor building B (hereinafter “instant building”) on the 3rd floor (hereinafter “instant building”) on the front city, Busan Metropolitan City, and used it by extending it without permission, and was under control of the violation of the Building Act on April 10, 2013.

B. On April 12, 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective order (hereinafter “the first corrective order”) to the effect that the Plaintiff would rectify the current status of the building in violation of Article 79(1) of the Building Act by May 22, 2013, specifying the current status of the building as listed below (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”).

Therefore, while the Plaintiff completed the correction of the first floor of the instant building (hereinafter “section”) and the third floor of 45 square meters of the instant building (hereinafter “section B”), the Plaintiff was subject to imposition of enforcement fines on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff failed to complete the correction of the third floor of the instant building (hereinafter “III”) and the fourth floor of the instant building (hereinafter “fourth floor”) and was subject to imposition of enforcement fines.

In the case of a non-high-rise general restaurant with a size of the structure for the purpose of violation (land size), 418 non-corrections of containers for a 40 non-rectal house (Annexed warehouse) with a completion of correction of 123 square meters;

C. On November 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) specified the current state of the building in violation of Article 79(1) of the Building Act, such as the first corrective order; and (b) ordered correction by December 7, 2014 pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant corrective order”); (c) and (d) found that the enforcement fine is scheduled to be imposed pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act if the pertinent corrective order is not corrected within the given period.

On December 7, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the extension of the deadline for payment; and (b) the Defendant extended the deadline for payment of the instant first corrective order until March 31, 2015.

Then, on March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on completion of removal to the effect that the Plaintiff removed the instant ③ and ④ parts, but on the ground that the correction was not completed, the Defendant did not complete.