1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 3, 2011, the Plaintiff completed a report on the temporary use of a mountainous district for the purpose of cultivating ornamental trees with respect to 22,483 square meters among the forest land outside Gangseo-si B and four lots (hereinafter “instant forest”) to the Defendant, and performed the instant construction in the instant forest after having completed the extension of the period on one occasion.

B. On September 30, 2015, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the instant forest, and found the fact that the instant forest should be created as a slope with a height of 15 meters or more at least 7 meters according to the business plan originally reported by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant violation”). On October 2, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to the Plaintiff to submit relevant data, such as the suspension of construction and on-site drawings, etc.

C. On November 5, 2015, the Defendant made an on-site investigation into the instant forest on the following grounds: (a) around December 17, 2015, the Defendant changed the Plaintiff’s business plan without filing a report on the following grounds: (b) on the ground that “the Plaintiff changed the business plan without filing a report on the change of the business plan; (c) creating the land for ornamental tree cultivation as a slope; (d) significantly decreasing the area of the ornamental tree cultivation area; and (e) removing earth and sand produced in the process of creating a slope from a slope without permission.”

The disposition that received a report on temporary use of mountainous districts as stated in paragraph (1) was revoked (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 4 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was merely engaged in the construction of a site for the cultivation of ornamental trees as originally reported to the Defendant, and did not change the purpose of business. The instant violation was merely an attempt to create a site for ornamental trees as soon as possible.

Therefore, in order to correct the error of the defendant, the change of the business plan is reported to the plaintiff.