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

A. In around 2009, the Plaintiff formed a building without permission for use or loan contract (hereinafter “instant building”) in part of the forest land in Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant state-owned land”) located within the forest management office located in Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “F Bath”) and operated a mutual frequency of “C” at the same time from that time to that time, and also resides with the external grandchildren.

B. Around July 3, 2011, around May 18, 2015, around June 5, 2015, and around November 23, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove and reinstate the instant building several times.

C. Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff did not remove the instant building, the Defendant, on March 17, 2016, ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove illegal facilities on July 3, 2011, May 18, 2014, and June 5, 2015, but has not yet been taken measures. Accordingly, it is recognized that the neglect may substantially undermine the public interest because it interferes with the administration of State property, so that it can be voluntarily removed by March 31, 2016. If the instant period is not implemented, the Defendant, in accordance with Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, has a third party vicariously execute it, and the expenses for vicarious execution are known from the Plaintiff in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), stated below the instant order.

B [Ground of recognition] without dispute, Gap 1-4, 6, 7 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1-3, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition was lawful

A. In light of the following circumstances, the instant appeal disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(1) The instant dismissal disposition against an unspecified person in question.