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

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of the share 113/488, among “Yanpo-si B, Ganpo-si, 4,548 square meters” (hereinafter “the instant fish farm”).

B. On the ground that the Defendant violated Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”) by “the Plaintiff buried the entire fish farm in the instant case without permission and converting it into a storage yard for aggregate,” the Defendant issued each corrective order to the Plaintiff on December 11, 2014 and February 6, 2015, whose restoration to the instant fish farm is its restoration.

C. On March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff did not comply with the above corrective order, the Defendant issued a prior notice of imposition of enforcement fines (hereinafter “prior notice”), and on September 4, 2015, issued a disposition imposing the maximum amount of KRW 50 million as enforcement fines (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In order to impose a charge for compelling compliance under the Act on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law on the Law of the Law on the Law of the