이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 1,594 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the Dong Government-si located within the development-restricted zone.
B. On March 4, 2016, the Defendant newly constructed a vinyl and changed the form and quality of the instant land on the ground that it was in violation of Article 12 of 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”), and issued a first step order and corrective order by fixing the period of voluntary restoration until April 3, 2016. On April 21, 2016, the Plaintiff again issued a second step order and corrective order by setting the period of voluntary voluntary restoration to the Plaintiff by the end of May 11, 2016.
C. On June 8, 2016, the Defendant accused the Plaintiff of a violation of the Development Restriction Zone Act against the police station. On July 7, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the enforcement fine will be imposed unless it is restored to the original state voluntarily by July 7, 2016.
On August 22, 2016, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the instant land, and on August 24, 2016, issued a disposition to impose enforcement fines of KRW 50 million on the Plaintiff based on Article 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act on August 24, 2016.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
On November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said Adjudication Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on February 13, 2017.
On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff was served with a written ruling.
F. Meanwhile, on November 23, 2016, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 5 million on the criminal facts constituting a violation of the Development Restriction Zone Act by failing to comply with each corrective order despite having received two orders to restore the original state to the original state on two occasions. On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for formal trial with respect to the above summary order on December 21, 2016, and withdrawn the said request on January 12, 2017.
[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 13, Evidence No. 13, Evidence No. 26, 27, 34, and 35, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is based on the following grounds.