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 Plaintiff is the owner of the building B located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to correct the violation of Article 14 of the Building Act by October 10, 2015, on the ground that the 50 square meters (hereinafter “the instant extension portion”) among the instant building was extended without permission, and issued a notice to impose KRW 9,775,000 for non-performance penalty on the ground that the corrective order was issued to correct the violation by October 13, 2015. On October 13, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice to impose KRW 9,775,00 for non-performance penalty and a notice to impose KRW 9,775,00 for non-performance penalty if the corrective order was not issued until November 13, 2015, and did not correct the violation until that time. On December 1, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 9,775,000 for non-performance penalty on the ground that the violation was not corrected.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 2 to 4 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the extension portion of the instant building was extended without permission around 2007, and the Plaintiff was unaware of the instant extension portion at the time of the purchase, which was subsequent to that on April 30, 2014. This constitutes a case where ownership was changed after a violation of Article 80-2(1)2 of the Building Act and Article 115-4(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act as amended on February 11, 2016, and thus, the amount of enforcement fines for construction should be reduced to 1/2.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which did not reduce enforcement fines, is unlawful.

(2) Article 80-2 (Special Cases concerning Imposition of Charges for Compelling Compliance) (1) of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 13471, Aug. 11, 2015)