1. The part concerning the request for revocation of the disposition of vicarious administrative execution, among the lawsuits in this case, shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 30, 201, the Defendant, on December 30, 201, granted to B permission to occupy and use five years (from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016) with respect to the river site of 139 square meters in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant river site”).

B. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired facilities, etc. installed in the instant river site from B to the Defendant in the price of KRW 24.3 million, and subsequently reported succession to the rights and obligations of permission for occupation and use of rivers to the Defendant, which was accepted on August 12, 2015.

The Plaintiff is running a sales business in a single unit of the river site of this case.

C. On September 20, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on September 20, 2016 that “The extension of the period of permission to occupy and use the river since 2017 was impossible since there was a residents’ recommendation to create a shelter, etc. for residents in the instant river site.”

On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of the occupation period of the instant river site from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 for the sale and storage of other fish, but the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission on January 2, 2017 (hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”).

E. On January 5, 2017 and January 24, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to reinstate the Plaintiff, but failed to comply with the order, and on February 20, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of vicarious administrative execution (hereinafter “instant order disposition”). On February 20, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to voluntarily remove all the facilities and structures of other fish sales stores installed in the instant river site by March 17, 2017.”

On March 21, 2017, the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the same content as the instant order, by April 7, 2017, and the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant order from the original complaint even against the said order.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 shall be included.