이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance citing the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable.
Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted for this decision.
Under the main arguments emphasized by the plaintiff in the appellate trial, this paper briefly examines the main arguments.
2. The plaintiff's major argument on the plaintiff's main argument is that the plaintiff was only farming company for 7 years after acquiring land ownership, and otherwise, the defendant's public official did not mention that he did not directly engage in illegal timber or construction. Thus, the plaintiff asserts to the purport that the disposition of imposition is unfair.
However, the following facts can be fully recognized by the statements or images of evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 of this Act:
In other words, on March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff received a corrective order (No. 2) from the Defendant on an illegal act in a development-restricted zone from March 14, 2017, and a notice of the scheduled imposition of enforcement fines (No. 3) on May 15, 2017, and did not correct the illegal state until the Defendant imposed enforcement fines.
At the time of issuing corrective orders and enforcement fines, changes in the form and quality of land owned by the plaintiff and land owned by the plaintiff were in violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones.
As above, the Plaintiff had sufficient time and opportunity to correct the unlawful state until the Plaintiff received a corrective order as above and received a disposition of non-performance penalty.
In addition, as long as changes in the form and quality of the building owned by the plaintiff and the land owned by the plaintiff are illegal as above, they should be restored to a legitimate state, and the state of illegality has been old.
The mere fact that a person, other than the Plaintiff, made such a state, cannot be seen otherwise.
In addition, Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones is the above restoration.