1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all 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 site in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, C, D, E, F, G, and H, and is the co-owner who has one-half shares of the first site.

B. Under Articles 69 and 69-2(1)1 of the former Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8974, Mar. 21, 2008), the head of Jongno-gu Office imposed a disposition imposing charges for compelling the performance by calculating an amount equivalent to 50/100 of the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the total amount of charges for compelling the performance by calculating the area of violation by calculating the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the total amount of charges for compelling the performance of a building (hereinafter in this case’s disposition) on the above site and the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J ground owned by the Jongno-gu Office of Jongno-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the building”).

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 46 million among the charges for compelling compliance imposed as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 3, 6 through 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. First, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is null and void, the Plaintiff had already been constructed four temporary buildings with legitimate building permission and building report prior to the beginning of the instant building, but had only “large-scale repair” as a part of a temporary building due to fire around 2003, and did not construct the instant building.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff applied Article 69-2(1)1 of the former Building Act on the premise that the instant building was “construction” without permission for construction and building report is unlawful.

Second, even if this falls under construction rather than substantial repair, the calculation of the standard market price, which is the basis of the calculation of enforcement fines, was erroneously calculated.

In other words, the building of this case was constructed in 2003.