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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The land owned by the Plaintiff was previously designated as a development restriction zone under 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”). However, in around 2004, a development restriction zone was released as to part of the instant land as the district unit planning was established and decided around 2004.

B. On the ground of the instant land, the Plaintiff newly constructed each of the above buildings, including the above buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant buildings”).

C. On March 14, 2014, pursuant to Article 2(3)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act, the Kimhae-si, located in the vicinity of the instant land, released an additional development restriction zone on a part of the land adjacent to the said project district, and was also included in the scope of cancellation of the said development restriction zone.

Defendant C, a public official of Defendant Kim Young-si, informed that the instant land was illegal and confirmed on December 21, 2016, and confirmed that the instant building was constructed in a development restriction zone without permission.

E. On February 1, 2017, the Kim Sea Mayor notified the Plaintiff of a corrective order for the restoration of the instant land on the ground of the violation of the Development Restriction Zone Act.

F. As the Plaintiff did not restore the instant land to its original state, on September 5, 2017, the Kim Sea Mayor accused the Plaintiff on the charge of violating the restriction on activities in the development restriction zone on the instant land and of failing to comply with the corrective order.

On December 26, 2017, the public prosecutor in charge of the original district public prosecutor's office imposed a disposition that does not have the right to institute a public prosecution due to the expiration of the statute of limitations on the act in the development-restricted area, and a fine of KRW 50,000 on the non-performance of the corrective order.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, Eul Nos. 1, 2, 6, 13.