1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition in the first instance court and the Defendant’s disposition on April 7, 2017, regarding the facilities listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff on the ground B, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the order for restoration to the original state and the disposition for removal to the original state. The first instance court dismissed the part seeking revocation of the disposition made on April 7, 2017, and dismissed the claim for revocation of the instant disposition.

The plaintiff filed an appeal only to dismiss the claim for cancellation of the disposition of this case, and the scope of the judgment of the court is limited to the claim for cancellation of the disposition of this case

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, in addition to adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance to the following 3. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Part 2, Paragraph 15 of the "public property" is regarded as "(1) public property."

The “a manager (building: assembly type, size: 82.8 square meters)” on the 6th parallel 7th parallel 7th parallel 7th square meters is “a manager (a structure: prefabricated type, size: 82.8 square meters, and hereinafter referred to as “former manager”).

i)in Doro-friendly;

Part 12, "No. 9, 2002, May 5, 2002" shall be changed to " May 2003."

3. Judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial room

A. Of the Plaintiff’s alleged facilities, the instant manager is not an unauthorized occupation but a permanent facility installed without the condition of donation, removal, or reinstatement to the State or a local government pursuant to Article 17(5) of the former Grassland Act, and constitutes a facility lawfully installed under a loan agreement on April 2, 2003, and thus, the Plaintiff is not obligated to remove the instant manager.

B. Article 83(1) of the Public Property Act provides that where the head of a local government occupies a public property or installs a facility on a public property without justifiable grounds, he/she shall restore the property to its original state or restore the facility.