1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. During the disposition, the Plaintiff operated a 329.03 square meters structure of light steel frame (general restaurants, toilets), 103.98 square meters in the panel structure (general restaurants, toilets), 2.4 square meters in the panel structure (ware), 16.2 square meters in light-weight steel frame and 86 square meters in the panel structure (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”), as the owner of the instant building. The Plaintiff operated a cafeteria with the trade name “C” in the instant building.

On August 14, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to remove the instant building up to September 4, 2017 and restore it to its original state pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act and Article 133 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, on the ground that the instant building is an unlawful building for which the building permit, etc. was not granted. In the event that the Plaintiff’s failure to implement such order, the instant building would substantially impair the smooth performance of construction administration and public safety, and if it is left alone, it would substantially undermine the public interest, and thus, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to vicariously remove the instant building pursuant to Article 85(1)5 of the Building Act and Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (hereinafter “instant order disposition”).

On September 13, 2017, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to remove the instant building by October 10, 2017 and restore it to its original state. On September 13, 2017, the Defendant sent a letter of warning to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff will remove the instant building by proxy in the event that the Plaintiff fails to comply with the demands.

On March 28, 2018, the Defendant issued a writ of vicarious execution to remove the building of this case by proxy after April 16, 2018, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, on the ground that the removal of the building of this case and its restoration have not been performed to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the building of this case was purchased from a third party, not directly constructed by the Plaintiff.