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

A. The plaintiff is the commercial building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B 3rd floor "Sho Lake Office" (hereinafter referred to as "Sho Lake Office").

(i) is a person operating the Act;

B. On September 24, 2012, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a corrective order (Notice of Voluntary Removal of Illegal Advertisements) stating that the Plaintiff’s act of installing and using five signboards (hereinafter “instant signboards”) without obtaining permission or without filing a report as indicated in the attached list “SUC” or “SUB” on the instant commercial building constitutes illegal advertisements violating Article 3 of the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act, and that the Defendant’s order to voluntarily remove the signboards by registered mail was sent to the Plaintiff by no later than October 22, 2012, but was returned to the Plaintiff on September 27, 2012.

C. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff did not remove the instant signboard even after the said corrective order, and sent to the Plaintiff a written order of imposition of charges for compelling the performance (total five cases of illegal advertisements) by registered mail. However, on November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff returned the written order of imposition of charges for compelling the performance to the Plaintiff by registered mail, and the Defendant sent the said written order by public notice on November 26, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, the Defendant sent the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, which included a sum of KRW 8,70,000,000 for compelling compliance, as indicated in the attached list, pursuant to Article 10-3 of the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act, to the Plaintiff, but was rejected on December 21, 2012. The Defendant: (a) on March 29, 2013, the period for public notice by publication of the instant disposition was from April 1, 2013.

4. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 16, 2013 regarding the instant disposition. However, on September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff was aware of the instant disposition on April 15, 2013, and the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 16, 2013, and the period for request was exceeded since it was filed on July 16, 2013 after the lapse of 90 days thereafter.

"Abstinence" was dismissed for the reason that it was illegal. The fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence of Nos. 2-1, 2-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, and the entire pleadings.