1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is the owner of 2 Dong-dong (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) of traditional Chinese-style wood tanks 39.11 square meters in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu and traditional Chinese-style wood tanks 57.24 square meters in height, and operates a restaurant at that place.

On December 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing the enforcement fine of KRW 8,225,380 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff without permission extended the area of 31.34 square meters per math of the instant building, 1.82 square meters of the Dong gate, and 7.24 square meters of the north gate (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

As to the part III, which was a mast part of each part of the two buildings, the Plaintiff: (a) with respect to the part in which the part was a mast part of the mast part of the building; (b) with a cover covering an empty space between the eaves and the mast in each mast part; and (c) with a cover covering an empty space between each mast and each mast part; and (b) with a cover room or a passage between each est part and each est part and each est part.

As to the fourth part of the same part of the building of this case, the Plaintiff installed a light-weight frame and installed an outer wall of the building and a cover covering the light-weight frame, and used it as part of the entrance passage.

As to the fifth part of the north part of the instant building, the Plaintiff installed a cover covering the outer wall of the building with the wall to the panel, and stored and used it in the fifth part.

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including numbers in the case of serial numbers), and the purport of the whole purport of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, based on the following reasons, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have extended the part subject to the disposition of this case. Thus, the prior disposition of this case

원고는 이 사건 처분 대상 부분에 빗물 및 햇빛을 막기 위해 아크릴 패녈...