The defendant shall be innocent.

The Defendant, who is the owner of the facts charged, leased and used B, Busan Heung-gu C, and was changed in the form and quality of the above land without obtaining permission for change in the form and quality of the land around November 2018, and completed restoration from January 31, 2019 to December 26, 2018.

“A restoration order under the name of the head of the Gu is issued, but the order has not been implemented without justifiable reasons.

2. Determination:

A. According to Articles 21(1), 21(4), and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act, where an administrative agency imposes a duty on a party or imposes a restriction on his/her rights and interests, it shall notify the party concerned, etc. of the fact and details of the disposition, the legal basis for the disposition, the purport that the party concerned may submit his/her opinion, and the method of disposal when failing to submit his/her opinion. In cases where other Acts and subordinate statutes stipulate that a hearing shall be held or a public hearing shall be held, the party concerned, etc. shall be given an opportunity to present his/her opinion; however, prior notice or hearing of the disposition may not be given only where there

Therefore, in cases where an administrative agency did not give the above prior notice or give the party an opportunity to present opinions while making an infringing administrative disposition, such disposition cannot be exempt from revocation due to its illegality unless it falls under exceptional cases where the administrative agency does not give such prior notice or where it does not give an opportunity to present opinions.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Du30687, Jan. 16, 2013; 2017Do7321, Sept. 21, 2017). Furthermore, in order for a person subject to a disposition or an order to take measures under Article 133(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act to punish a person who violates such order, thereby doing so.