1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff A acquired the shares of 6,361 square meters of land D and 6,361 square meters of land inHanam-si (hereinafter “Cdong”) located in the development-restricted zone. Since then, Plaintiff A acquired the ownership of 1,186 square meters of land E and 1,186 square meters of land divided in D through the partition of co-owned property on December 28, 2016.

Plaintiff

B acquired the shares of D prior to the aforementioned subdivision on September 12, 2016, and thereafter acquired on March 14, 2017 through the partition of co-owned property of F forest land of 669 square meters divided in D.

(E) each land of E and F is hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”).

The Defendant, in violation of Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”), ordered the Plaintiffs, G Co., Ltd., and H to restore the land area of KRW 1003.48 square meters in area E (hereinafter “C Dong”) to the Plaintiff on September 25, 2017, on the grounds that the land category of the Plaintiff was damaged (siteation) to forest or land area of KRW 4,633.34 square meters in a development restriction zone as forest and land area of KRW 4,63.34 square meters in a development restriction zone, and orders the Plaintiff to restore the land area of KRW 573.09 square meters in size of “F” to the original state (Corrective order) in accordance with Article 30(1) of the same Act.

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions of this case").

The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as shown in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs purchased each of the instant land to use the land as a garage by changing the form and quality of the land claimed by the Plaintiffs, and each of the instant land was temporarily planted only during the period from 2009 to 2012, and there was no trees thereafter, and the neighboring residents cultivated crops.

Therefore, the form and quality of each of the above lands was not forest land, and the plaintiffs are not changing the form and quality, and they are not responsible for reinstatement.