1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each of the instant buildings and the ground buildings located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant buildings”)

B In the registry of the building B, the content of building is “a wooden and coagubbes 20 square meters in a sap,” and the building register is “a building with a total floor area of 67.57 square meters and a sap roof”. The building registration of the building C is “a wooden and coagus 208 square meters in a sap,” and the building register is a neighborhood living facility (office) with a building with a total floor area of 66.38 square meters in a 1st floor and an extract roof.

B. On April 25, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to voluntarily correct each of the instant buildings by not later than June 4, 2018, each of the instant buildings was discovered to have been reconstructed and expanded without permission in around 1996, and on April 30, 2018.

As the Plaintiff did not correct the violation, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff on September 12, 2018 after receiving a correction promotion commission and a notice of notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty on June 20, 2018.

(c) On December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on February 25, 2019. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute a dispute, and evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 11 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

written evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff maintained and managed the building as it was at the time it purchased and acquired each of the instant buildings, and there was no separate extension or reconstruction. 2) Even if the Plaintiff extended or reconstructed the building without permission, each of the instant buildings was designated as a water uniform joint development zone, and thus granted permission for extension or reconstruction.