1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 9,951,00 on the Plaintiff on December 10, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 271 square meters in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant land”), which is a development-restricted zone.

B. On July 8, 2015 and August 17, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Development Restriction Zones”) by changing the form and quality of a total of 146 square meters of land in the instant case and 156 square meters of forest C, and 142 square meters of forest land, on April 2016.

The details of calculation of charges for compelling the performance of location size B 9,951,00 m27,200 m227,200 m246 x 0.3 200,000 C 156 m20,000 m258,000 m256 m256 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m3 9,000 x

C. On December 10, 2015, the Defendant imposed KRW 10,820,000 for a non-performance penalty as indicated below pursuant to Article 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act on the ground that the violation against the Plaintiff was not corrected.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). D. The imposition of KRW 9,951,00 for non-performance penalty related to the instant land of this case is as follows.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On August 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion that a landslide occurred in the instant land due to a heavy rain, and the Plaintiff removed the above earth and sand in order to set up the farmer’s house. This constitutes “the act of cutting down rice paddy, dry field, or digging up not more than 50 cm for farming,” or “the act of removing soil and sand stored in the dry field due to flood, etc.” under Article 12 [Attachment Table 4] 1A and (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Development Restriction Zone Act, and thus is not subject to a corrective order.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above act is subject to corrective order.