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 Defendant received a civil petition that there is a building violating the Building Act on the Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu B, Daejeon-gu, and confirmed the site around July 2013, and confirmed the following violations of the Building Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant violating building”). A

B. Accordingly, on July 16, 2013, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to restore the instant violating building to its original state by September 15, 2013, pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act, and the Defendant did not demand the Plaintiff to restore the building to its original state within the said period. On September 26, 2013, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to rectify the violating building (by November 3, 2013).

C. However, on December 9, 2013 and February 6, 2014, the Defendant, who did not recover from the original state even by the foregoing deadline, notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of each charge for compelling the performance. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant the opinion requesting extension of the period for rectification (the request for extension by April 2014).

Accordingly, on February 24, 2014, the Defendant sent a reply to the Plaintiff on April 20, 2014 to the effect that the correction of the non-compliant building would be extended by April 20, 2014. However, even after the expiration of the pertinent period, no correction was made, and thereafter, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of the non-performance penalty on December 4, 2014, and imposed KRW 12,983,000 on the Plaintiff on December 22, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On March 2015, the Plaintiff removed all of the instant violating buildings subject to the instant disposition.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 6, or the purport of the whole pleading or video.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to revoke the instant disposition in that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The instant disposition based on which the instant violating structure had already been removed is no longer reasonable. (2) Inasmuch as the enforcement fine is a means of administrative indirect enforcement that indirectly forces the performance of obligations, not a sanction against past violations, it is a compulsory enforcement fine.