행정대집행계고처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who sets up a farming shed in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun and cultivates fruit trees.
B. The above land is a franchi, and the Plaintiff used the land C (owner D) and E (owner F) in the Haan-gun, Haan-gun, Haan-gun, the neighboring land, as a passage, but as a result, the land owner and the owner of each of the above land could not use the above land as a passage. On July 2015, the Plaintiff installed an artificial structure of about 1.2 meters in width, about 90 meters in length (hereinafter “the instant ditch”) on the instant ditch in order to use the land as a passage for the land for a passage.
(hereinafter “instant structure”). C.
On September 27, 2018 and November 3, 2018, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore the instant building to its original state on the ground that “an act of installing the instant building without prior permission or consultation with the competent department to possess the instant ditch without permission,” but did not comply with the order.
On December 19, 2018, pursuant to Article 21(3) of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter “Public Waters Act”) and Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, the Defendant issued a disposition to voluntarily remove the instant structure to the Plaintiff by setting the period of voluntary removal by January 21, 2019.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
On December 26, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Superior-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the appeal was dismissed on February 27, 2019.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 13, 18, 19, Eul 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, 22 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate;
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff installed a new farm road from the Defendant, with the consent of the Defendant to use it as a passage, on condition that the new farm road is to be removed, and installed the structure of this case. The Defendant opened a new farm road on the ditch of this case around spring in 2018.