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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The key issue of the instant case was: (a) on April 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to remove and restore the said unlawful building (hereinafter “instant corrective order”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was not in compliance with the said corrective order, on June 24, 2014, on the grounds that the Plaintiff illegally extended the building indicated in the separate sheet from 1984 to 1995, from 198, the Magdong, Magdong, Busan, which was designated as a development restriction zone (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b) the Defendant issued a disposition imposing enforcement fine of KRW 5,624,000 on June 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The key issue of this case is whether the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”) enforced from July 1, 200 can be applied to the extension of this case, and whether the corrective order and disposition of this case are unlawful in violation of the principle of proportionality.

B. As to the issue of the judgment of the court of first instance (1), the court of first instance determined that “the development restriction zone designated pursuant to Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act as of July 1, 2000, which was in force on December 29, 1971, was designated as a development restriction zone pursuant to Article 21 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 2435, Dec. 30, 1972; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 4 of the Addenda to the Development Restriction Zone Act (amended by March 21, 2008) provides that the development restriction zone designated pursuant to Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act as of July 1, 200, which was in force on July 1, 200, may be applied to the extension of this case.”

(2) In relation to the issue, the court of first instance cannot be readily concluded that there is no way to remove the buildings listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4 and 5 without affecting the lawfully constructed Gyeyang Cancer, and there is a aspect that the unlawful buildings in this case are provided for some public interests.