1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff is running the parking lot business in the name of "C" in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Miscellaneous land.

However, on October 13, 2016, it was discovered that C employee parked as a 3225 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was designated as a neighboring development restriction zone, rather than a site for a customer car that was permitted.

Accordingly, on October 14, 2016 and November 10, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order and a pre-announcement of imposition of a non-performance penalty on the ground that “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”) was obtained in a development restriction zone pursuant to the proviso to Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones. However, the Plaintiff committed a violation using the instant land as a parking lot without permission. The size of the violation is 2485 square meters out of the area of the instant land.”

However, on November 23, 2016, the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order within the prescribed period, and on November 23, 2016, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 50,00,000 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act (Subject to imposition: KRW 2485,00,000,000 for a non-performance penalty of KRW 325,000 for the instant land x individually assessed individual land price of KRW 216,70,00 for a non-violation area x 2485 square meters x 0.3 square meters for a non-violation area x 0.3 square meters x 0.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Gap evidence No. 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) did not directly change the form and quality of the instant land, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, as a parking lot, to use it as a parking lot.

The plaintiff is not the owner of the land of this case nor the manager or the possessor through the lease agreement, and there is no authority over the land of this case.

In addition, the instant land C.