원상회복명령 및 행정대집행 영장통보처분 취소
1. The part of the claim seeking the revocation of a warrant of vicarious administrative execution among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
(a) Category C located in Pyeongtaek-si B is designated as State-designated cultural heritage E;
(hereinafter “instant cultural heritage”). (b)
The Defendant cut F-si G land located in the neighboring area of the instant cultural heritage without obtaining permission from the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “G land”), and recovered the land of this case against the Plaintiff on January 23, 2014 pursuant to Article 42(1)4 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act, deeming that the Plaintiff violated Article 35(1)2 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12352, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) and violated Article 35(1)2 of the same Act, on January 23, 2014, by filling the land of this case into four lots, such as Pyeongtaek-si I, J, K, and L, owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “public land”).
(hereinafter “First Restoration Order”). The Defendant extended the period of restitution on March 5, 2014 by March 20, 2014.
C. Upon the Plaintiff’s failure to implement the above order for restitution, the Defendant, pursuant to Article 42(3) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, restored each of the instant land to the Plaintiff by April 26, 2014. If the Plaintiff’s failure to implement the order for restitution by the said deadline, the Defendant issued a disposition for improvement of administrative vicarious execution with a purport to conduct administrative vicarious execution and collect the cost thereof.
Article 42(1)4 and (3) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, on April 10, 2014, deeming that the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff violated Article 35(1)2 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act by planting KRW 4,500 on the land of four parcels, including I, including I, without obtaining permission; and (b) ordered the Plaintiff to remove the said services until April 26, 2014; (c) “the second order to reinstate the Plaintiff”; and (d) the first order to reinstate the Plaintiff.”