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

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of B miscellaneous land B 1,653 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located within a development-restricted zone in Silung-si.

B. On October 13, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in the act on the instant land. However, on October 15, 2009, the Defendant rejected against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant did not comply with the purpose of designating a zone, which is to ensure and manage a healthy living environment for urban citizens by preventing urban disorderly expansion pursuant to Article 1 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Act”) and preserving the natural environment surrounding the city, as the neighboring development restriction zone of the instant land is located in Cpark, D golf course, and third-party Highway.

(C) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the first disposition with Suwon District Court 2009Guhap12434 (hereinafter “the first disposition”). However, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 24, 2010 (joint Plaintiff E, F, G, H, I), and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff appealed on April 26, 201, Seoul High Court 2010Nu22421, but the said appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal, and the subsequent judgment (hereinafter “prior judgment”) became final and conclusive. The Plaintiff filed an application for a completion inspection on December 17, 2013 for the instant permission to engage in development activities against the Defendant again, from the date of permission to engage in development activities to the date of delivery of the period of permission to the Plaintiff, to the date of completion inspection on December 28, 2014 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff received a completion inspection on December 28, 2014”).

E. On August 13, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore the permitted facilities to its original state following the expiration of the storage period of goods.

F. The Plaintiff on August 21, 2015