1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing this as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant merely notified the Plaintiff that “it would be deemed that there is no opinion during the time limit” while notifying the Plaintiff of the instant corrective order, and did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to present opinions in relation to the instant corrective order because the Plaintiff did not present his opinion at all. As such, the prior notice of the instant corrective order was in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and is unlawful, and the instant corrective order and the instant disposition should also be revoked unlawfully. 2) The instant land was used as a miscellaneous land for the purpose of piling up solid water by piling up concrete before June 20, 2005, and the Plaintiff did not change the shape of the instant land externally by using the current state of the instant land after receiving the successful bid in the auction procedure on November 26, 2009.

In addition, since concrete that was removed from the land of this case can be removed at any time and does not have to be restored to its original state, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case was altered to its original state.

3. A container and a fraternity installed on the instant land are objects stipulated in Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act, which can only be loaded if only a report is filed with the Mayor, etc. as prescribed in Article 19, but the Defendant imposed an excessive charge for compelling execution on the ground that the Plaintiff constructed a building and installed a structure in a development restriction zone without permission. This is the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act.