2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who establishes a G School at a temporary building in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, C, D, E, or F Land (hereinafter “each land of this case”) and a container installed on the ground of the steel frame/market (hereinafter “instant temporary building”).

B. Each of the instant lands is designated as a development restriction zone under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”).

C. The Defendant on May 26, 2014 and the same year

6. 2. The Plaintiff issued a corrective order to voluntarily remove a temporary building on the ground B and C, inasmuch as the act of installing a temporary building on the ground B and C violates Article 12(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act, and the same year.

9. On 25. 25. D, E, C, and F, a temporary building (a steel frame, board) was installed on the ground of D, E, C, and F, and thus, an act violating Article 12(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act, and thus, a corrective order was issued to voluntarily remove it.

On October 21, 2014, the Defendant filed an accusation against the Plaintiff with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the charge of violating the Development Restriction Zone Act, and the content of the unlawful act was that the Plaintiff installed a container of 18 square meters, a steel frame, and 28 square meters on each of the instant land on each of the instant land.

E. On April 20, 2015 and January 7, 2016, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act on the ground that each of the instant lands is an illegal facility within a development restriction zone, on the ground that the 18m2 and 28m2 on each of the instant lands is an illegal facility within a development restriction zone.

F. On June 3, 2016, the Defendant, on the part of the Plaintiff, ordered a vicarious execution pursuant to Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act in a case where a temporary building (container 18 square meters, steel dunes, steel duness, and 28 square meters) installed on each of the instant lands is not voluntarily removed by the 18th day of the same month.

G. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, on November 25, 2016, on a temporary building established on each of the instant lands (container 18 square meters, steel frame/grads, 28 square meters) on each of the instant lands.