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 22, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the sports facility business to the Defendant with the following contents, and operated a B golf driving range (hereinafter “instant golf driving range”).

1. Location: 20 square meters in Naju-si and 3 lots (area) 2: 6 holes in gymnasium, 2 holes in gymnasium, 18,244 square meters in gymnasium, 199 square meters in offices;

B. On February 28, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the prohibition on the establishment (operation) of the instant additional 3 holes golf courses (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) pursuant to Article 76 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), Articles 71 and 133 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not obliged to install any facilities within the conservation management area,” on the ground that the instant additional 3 holes golf courses, other than the existing golf driving range, are operated.

C. On January 7, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order by January 23, 2015 pursuant to Articles 11 and 30 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Sports Facilities Act”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The instant additional 3 holes golf course (115 m, 2 m, 243m, 3 m, and 272m) operated by the Plaintiff, other than the reported facility business, was operated in excess of the facility standards, as a registered sports facility business.” On February 26, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the corrective order by March 30, 2015, on the ground that the instant additional 3 holes golf course (15m, 115m, 243m, and 272m) operated in excess of the facility standards.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant corrective order”). D.

On April 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension (hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition of business suspension”) for three days from April 6, 2015 to April 8, 2015 pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Sports Facility Business Act and Article 27(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Sports Facility Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism No. 214, Aug. 4, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “former Enforcement Rule”), on the ground that “the first disposition of business suspension” was against the Plaintiff, and on April 20, 2015.