1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing enforcement fines is modified as follows.

Defendant.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff around November 15, 201, revoked the disposition imposing a non-performance penalty, and filed a preliminary claim for revocation of the disposition imposing a non-performance penalty on March 8, 2017, revocation of the non-performance penalty, revocation of the part of KRW 567,00 among the disposition imposing a non-performance penalty, and revocation of the disposition imposing a non-performance penalty on December 20, 2017.

The court of first instance accepted only a claim for revocation of the part exceeding KRW 2,534,931 among the disposition imposing enforcement fines, and rendered a judgment dismissing both the remaining main claims and the conjunctive claims. Only the plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff as to the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing enforcement fines, among the judgment of first instance, and the defendant did not appeal.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the legitimacy of the part against the plaintiff among the claims for revocation of the disposition imposing enforcement fines, which is a part of appeal.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si E large 495 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

On April 3, 2013, the Plaintiff newly built a multi-unit house of reinforced concrete structure of the first floor, 245.82 square meters in a management room, 9.03 square meters in a management room, and 235.71 square meters in a multi-unit house of reinforced concrete structure of the second floor (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land upon obtaining a building permit, and obtained approval for use on October 15, 2013.

The building area of the instant building is 269.07 square meters for the building area, 54.36% for the building-to-land ratio, and 60% for the building-to-land ratio applicable to the instant land.

On November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that “The total floor area of two parking lots shall be 27.04 square meters (the total floor area per Dong 13.52 square meters) and the building-to-land ratio shall be 59.82 percent,” and the said report was accepted as it is.

However, contrary to the above extension report, the Plaintiff extended 2-dong parking lots with the total floor area of 27.5 square meters per Dong (hereinafter “instant parking building”) and installed a prefabricated panel structure on the balcony part among the first floor of the instant building.