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 November 2, 2015, upon the Plaintiff’s application, the Defendant issued a disposition to grant the Plaintiff permission to use the land of 7,500 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) out of 124,585 square meters of forest land B in the city-owned forest, an original city, from November 3, 2015 to December 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant permission for use”).

B. When granting permission for use as above, the Defendant added the incidental conditions (hereinafter “instant conditions of permission”) and among them, there are the following provisions.

Article 9 (Restrictions on Activities of Employees)

3. Change of the original state of the property for which permission for use has been granted;

2. Neglecting to keep any permitted property, or violating any condition of permission;

(c) Where a stable or other permanent facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree are installed in order to use grassland pursuant to Article 17 of the Grassland Act by using the permitted property, the authorization, permission and matters to be reported pursuant to the relevant Acts shall be revoked if it is impossible to obtain the authorization and permission under the individual Acts; and where a stable or other permanent facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree are installed in order to use grassland pursuant to Article 17 of the Grassland Act, the permission and matters to be reported shall be implemented after obtaining the approval

C. On November 2015, the Plaintiff installed livestock pens and other facilities (hereinafter “facilities of this case”) in the instant forest land without obtaining the Defendant’s approval or permission after obtaining the instant permission for use. D.

On December 8, 2015, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the effect that the Plaintiff would revoke the instant permission for use, as the Plaintiff installed a facility by changing the original state of the property that was permitted to use without obtaining approval under Article 25(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff voluntarily removed the instant structure on or around January 2016, but the Defendant, following a hearing, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act and Article 10 of the condition for permission to use Si-owned forest land.