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, who runs a construction business, is not allowed to construct a building, change the purpose of use of a structure, install a structure, change the form and quality of land, cut bamboo and trees, divide land, store goods, and implement an urban planning project within a development-restricted zone. In exceptional cases where such act is allowed, the Plaintiff was indicted on April 30, 200 by committing a crime of constructing two buildings with a total floor area of 84 square meters (hereinafter “one building”) and one building with a total floor area of 16.8 square meters (hereinafter “each building of this case”) on the land designated as a development-restricted zone on April 30, 207 as a development-restricted zone under the permission of the competent authority, and was dismissed on March 21, 2008 by the prosecutor’s decision of suspending the sentence of a fine of KRW 1 million on September 1, 2008.

B. The Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on March 3, 2010 and April 6, 2010 to order the restoration of each of the instant buildings to the original state on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”) by using each of the instant buildings as a religious assembly site and warehouse. After then, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on November 29, 2010; and on November 4, 201, 201, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the same restoration to the original state on December 7, 2011 and the imposition and collection of charges for compelling the performance under Article 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zones Act (However, from November 4, 2011, “the imposition limit and advance notice of charges for compelling the performance” to the portion that the Plaintiff used the building as a religious assembly site; and on December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order again on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order.