logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.28 2015구합64832
건축법위배로 인한 철거 및 강제이행금부과
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 안성시 B 임야 5,611㎡ 중 별지 1 감정도 표시 27, 28, 29, 30, 27의 각 점을 순차적으로 연결한 선내 ㈎ 부분 지상에 강파이프/천막 구조 시설물 20㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 시설물’이라 한다)를 설치하여 소유하고 있다.

B. On December 22, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective measures, such as voluntary removal, by January 21, 2015, on the ground that the instant facilities were illegal temporary buildings violating Article 20(3) of the Building Act.

(hereinafter “instant corrective order”). C.

On January 27, 2015, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to take corrective measures by February 22, 2015, on the ground that the corrective measures have not been taken within the said corrective period. D.

On February 26, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 370,000 on the charge for compelling compliance on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the above corrective order and corrective promotional order.

E. On June 19, 2015, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s objection on the disposition of the said charge for compelling the performance and imposed KRW 660,000 on July 1, 2015, on the ground that the instant facility violated Article 14(1) of the Building Act, which is not Article 20(3) of the Building Act, on the ground that it was an illegal building. Accordingly, the Defendant imposed KRW 660,000 for compelling the performance on July 1, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff newly constructed a restaurant and a pent in order to legally obtain a construction permit from the Defendant, and installed the instant facilities on the side of the said restaurant and the pentine building in order to enable the pentine users to use it as the pentine, and ① the instant facilities cannot be deemed as a building under the Building Act, and ② the instant facilities are already prescribed in Article 16(1) of the Building Act and Article 12(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

arrow