All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is correct as follows: "The plaintiff imposed a charge for compelling the performance of KRW 21,492,00 on the plaintiff" of 2nd 12th 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance. The plaintiff's new assertion is identical to the statement of the reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of this court as follows. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination by this Court

A. (1) Regarding the inconsistency between the notice of scheduled imposition of enforcement fines and the notice of scheduled imposition of enforcement fines in the instant disposition order, the land subject to the offense described in the notice of scheduled imposition of enforcement fines as of June 18, 2013 (2) and the notice of scheduled imposition of enforcement fines as of August 13, 2013 (2) are the land subject to the offense described in the notice of scheduled imposition of enforcement fines as of August 13, 2013 (3) and F. The instant notice of imposition of enforcement fines as of January 20, 2014 (5) contains C and D land, and the land subject to the offense is inconsistent.

Therefore, the imposition of enforcement fine of this case is unlawful.

(2) In the event that the subject of the judgment did not perform the obligation under the Administrative Act, the notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty was given based on the notice of scheduled imposition of a non-performance penalty, and the charge was imposed on the ground that the excess amount was minor, barring special circumstances, such as that the notice of scheduled imposition of a non-performance penalty is unlawful as it goes against the purport of the non-performance penalty system, and thus, the imposition of a non-performance penalty based on such notice is also unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2170 Decided June 24, 2015. Examining the instant case, the Defendant’s disposition imposing enforcement fines in this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”) stated the land subject to the instant offense in C and D.