1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, who was owned by B, constructed a steel pipe structure of 140 square meters, steel pipe structure of 36 square meters, and wooden tank building of 8 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”), without obtaining a construction permit, etc. on the B B’s B B B B’s prior to and D forests, and operated a restaurant in the instant building from around 2007.

On March 13, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to remove the instant building up to April 15, 2017 on the ground that the instant building is an unlawful building for which the building permit, etc. was not granted. The Plaintiff did not comply with the order.

On August 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a letter of warning that the Plaintiff will remove the instant building until August 28, 2017, and that the Plaintiff will remove the instant building by proxy if the building is not implemented. Since then, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a letter of warning that the removal of the instant building would be delayed on several occasions.

On December 15, 2017, pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act, Article 133 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and Article 44 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to remove the instant building up to January 5, 2018 and restore it to its original state, on the ground that the instant building was illegal buildings for which a building permit, etc. under the Building Act was not granted under the Building Act. In the event that the Plaintiff fails to implement such order, the instant building would substantially compromise the smooth performance of construction administration and public safety, and thereby, would substantially undermine the public interest if the building is left alone, and thus, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take a steps 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”).

The defendant, on April 16, 2018, intended to remove the building of this case by proxy after May 2, 2018, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, on the ground that the removal of the building of this case, etc. of this case, was not implemented to the plaintiff.