1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 24, 1998, a building built of reinforced concrete structure on the ground, and one parcel outside Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, and one lot of land (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, without obtaining permission or reporting around 1999, used it for the purpose of storage by extending the building area of 123.5 square meters with the roof and wall of the steel-frame structure on the rooftop of the instant building without obtaining permission or reporting.

B. However, on May 3, 2012, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff, without obtaining permission on the rooftop of the instant building, extended the building for warehouse use. Around September 2012, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff regarding the portion of unauthorized extension of the instant building.

C. On February 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective measures, such as voluntary removal, on October 10, 2014 and November 22, 2014 based on Article 79(1) of the Building Act, based on the fact that the pertinent building was illegal in violation of Articles 11 (Building Permits) and 14 (Building Report) of the Building Act, and ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective measures, such as voluntary removal, until October 10, 2014 and until November 22, 2014. If not corrected within the said period, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of corrective measures for unlawful buildings and the imposition of charges for compelling the performance of construction, under Article 80 of the Building Act.

On December 11, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 15,483,00 for compulsory performance of construction in the year 2014 pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act on the ground that the violation of the Building Act was not corrected (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the building was extended on the rooftop of the instant building around 1999, but the Plaintiff filed an accusation against the Defendant as an illegal building from early 2012, and the Defendant was immediately removed at that time.