1. The Defendant’s disposition of restoration order issued to the Plaintiff on April 29, 2019 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The land of this case, which was registered as owned by the State on May 24, 1972, is the land of which ownership is preserved as owned by the State on May 24, 1972.

B. On July 25, 1995, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D Forest land 2,975 square meters adjacent to the Dong-dong of the instant state-owned land on July 5, 199 with respect to the area of 466 square meters, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, which is adjacent to the west-gu of the instant state-owned land, on July 5, 1999 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”). The Plaintiff has operated artificial fishing ground production business in each of the instant lands.

C. The Plaintiff passed each of the instant lands through the instant state-owned land, and installed a wire network on each of the instant land boundary, and installed a wire network on the instant state-owned land.

On April 29, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of an order of restoration to the original state due to unauthorized occupation of state-owned land, stating that “by May 29, 2019, the removal of obstacles to unauthorized occupation in the instant state-owned land without permission.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On May 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Standing Provincial Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Standing Provincial Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 24, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant cited Articles 81 and 99 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act on the grounds of the instant disposition. However, the said provision is a provision regarding the collection of compensation and penal provisions for the person who occupied public property without permission, which is irrelevant to the order of restoration from the possession of State-owned land. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 14-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which stipulate the grounds for the instant disposition and the duty of presentation of reasons. 2) The instant disposition imposes an obligation on the Plaintiff.