1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of land B and 2, located within the development restriction zone in the Guri-si, B, and the land (hereinafter “instant land”).

around April 1988, the Plaintiff obtained a permit from the Defendant to remove goods on the ground of the above land, and has renewed it.

B. The Plaintiff and Nonparty C engaged in warehouse business under the name of “D”. From around 2007, 119 containers of 14.4 square meters on the instant land were installed on the instant land for the purpose of warehouse, and used one container of 14.4 square meters on the instant land for the purpose of warehouse, and changed the form and quality by converting approximately 115 square meters on each of the instant container sites into a site.

C. The Defendant issued the Plaintiff and Nonparty C a corrective order on July 13, 2012 and the first notification on the direction of restoration to the original state on August 6, 2012, on the ground that the use of containers above by the Plaintiff and Nonparty C was a construction of a temporary building, which is in violation of Article 12 of the Special Act on Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, which prohibit the construction of a building in a development restriction zone.

On November 30, 2012, the Defendant notified Nonparty C of an advance notice of imposition of KRW 50,000,000 for enforcement fines and guidance for submission of the advance notice. On this occasion, Nonparty C presented an opinion in advance to the Defendant on March 2013, that “it is a state of arranging business, and does not conclude a contract renewal. It was intended to move to another place. It is not easy to acquire ownership. It is not easy to postpone disposition by August 30, 2013, taking into account the fact that it is the land incorporated into E construction site.”

E. The Defendant, even after August 30, 2013, failed to restore the original state to the original state, on September 25, 2013, notified Nonparty C of the second non-party performance penalty, and on this occasion, Nonparty C requested on October 4, 2013, to postpone the disposition until June 30, 2014 when submitting to the Defendant an opinion to the effect similar to the previous one.

F. On July 24, 2014, the Defendant issued a charge for compelling the performance to the Plaintiff on July 24, 2014.