1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the operation of the river by-products (hingtop) storage facilities with the Defendant. On May 2, 2014, the Defendant terminated the said contract on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform its obligation to pay the price several times, despite being urged to the Plaintiff to perform it.

B. As the Plaintiff continued to select aggregate even though the said contract had been terminated, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to suspend the selection of aggregate and restore aggregate more than three times from September 29, 2014, and failed to comply with the order. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant voluntarily performed restoration to the dredging yard until December 31, 2014, but ordered the Plaintiff to perform restoration to the original state by the said period. If the restoration to the original state is not performed voluntarily by the said period, the Defendant issued a disposition to perform the vicarious execution.

C. As the Plaintiff did not implement the foregoing order within the given period, the Defendant issued a writ of vicarious execution to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2015, stating that “The date and time of vicarious execution: 14:00 on January 15, 2015, and that “The person in charge of vicarious execution: Regional Development Division C, name: D, name: Gohap, F company G, E, ear thickness at Chungcheong City, H Day at Chungcheong City, I, and I, in the course of operating the B river water storage by a contract with the one with the one with the one with the one with the one with the one with the one with the one with the one with the one with the one with the one with the one with the other, not only the termination of the contract, but also the restoration to the original state pursuant to the provisions of Articles 2 and 3(2) of the Aggregate Extraction Act, and thus, performed vicarious execution on January 15, 2015.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. As long as the execution of administrative vicarious execution based on the guidance and disposition by the Defendant’s principal defense against the Plaintiff has already been completed, the Defendant’s right to seek confirmation or revocation of the invalidity of the notice of issuance of a warrant of vicarious administrative execution.