1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing indemnity against the Plaintiff on March 30, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was the head of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the head of Suwon-si, and the operation council of the same-sex movie theater located in 947 (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”). Around February 21, 2016, the Plaintiff carried out 11 of the above street trees around February 21, 2016, on the ground that the width of street trees planted on the front side of the instant shopping mall is displayed, such as signal lights, traffic signs, bus stops, and the signboards of stores.

B. On March 30, 2016, the Defendant imposed KRW 8,757,410 of the indemnity on the Plaintiff on March 30, 2016, pursuant to Article 20 of the Ordinance on the Creation and Management of Street Trees (hereinafter “instant ordinance provisions”) on the ground that the roadside trees were damaged due to the foregoing removal.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant Municipal Ordinance provision is null and void in violation of the principle of statutory reservation, and thus, the instant disposition based thereon is also null and void. 2) Even if not, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have damaged or damaged street trees due to one set. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff caused damage to street trees should be revoked.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. 1) According to Article 22 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 4(3) of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulations, when a local government establishes a municipal ordinance, its contents must be delegated by law in cases where the restriction on the rights of residents or the imposition of obligations on residents or penal provisions are matters concerning the restriction on the rights of residents. Thus, there is no validity of the municipal ordinance prescribing matters concerning restriction on the rights of residents or the imposition of obligations

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du19270, Nov. 22, 2012). (b) The instant municipal ordinance provisions that the Defendant used as the basis for the instant disposition at the time of the instant disposition are “market.”