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

On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to “Congyang-si Co., Ltd. 1636§³” (hereinafter “instant land”), which is a development restriction zone under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”). At that time, the Plaintiff newly constructed a brickd house 63.68 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).

In accordance with Article 30(1)1 of the Development Restriction Zone Act, the head of the branch office in Namyang-si, 2015, deeming that the instant building was newly constructed without obtaining permission for an act within the development restriction zone, the head of the branch office in question issued a corrective order to restore the instant building to its original state within 30 days after the receipt of the written disposition to the Plaintiff, the landowner of the instant case, but the Plaintiff did not implement

After that, as the ordinance on the delegation of administrative affairs was amended on January 25, 2017, the branch office of Namyang-si was closed on February 6, 2017, and the defendant succeeded to the affairs concerning restrictions on activities and administrative dispositions in accordance with the Act on the Restriction of Development Areas, and the administrative disposition taken by the head of the branch office of Namyang-si prior to the enforcement of the amended Ordinance was considered to be the administrative disposition of the defendant.

[See [See Article 2 and Article 3 of the Addenda of the former Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Affairs (amended by Ordinance No. 1431, May 11, 2017)] The Defendant confirmed, through a field investigation on September 27, 2017, that the instant building is in existence on the instant land, and imposed a charge for compelling the performance of KRW 15,506,080 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 30-2 (1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act on September 28, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with a corrective order.

(2) The Plaintiff E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant disposition”)’s assertion as to whether the instant disposition is lawful or not, with the Defendant’s unlawful permission, is without permission, the ground for recognition of the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land.