1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

Details of the disposition

On November 3, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased a field B 2,102 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, which was designated as a development-restricted zone, from C and used it as a dry field.

From September 29, 201 to October 10, 2013, Gwangju City Mayor issued an order to restore the land category of the instant land to its original state on the ground that the Plaintiff, in total four occasions, laid down the instant land, which is a development restriction zone, without legitimate permission or reporting under Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Act No. 12633, May 21, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), was used as a dry field without legitimate permission or reporting under Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Measures for Development Restriction Zones"), and planted landscape trees as a dry field and constructed structures, etc.

(hereinafter “instant corrective order”). The Plaintiff did not object to the instant corrective order and caused disputes.

On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on the act within a development-restricted zone for changing the form and quality of the instant land. However, on October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff received a notice of rejection of the report on the act within the development-restricted zone (hereinafter “instant return disposition”) stating that “it is possible to render legitimate legal use at the time of granting permission for or reporting the change of the form and quality after completing the restoration to the original state on several occasions due to an administrative measure, such as unauthorized banking and use for other purposes, planting trees for landscaping, fume, reclamation, etc., without due process of lawful form and quality alteration.”

As the Plaintiff did not restore to its original state within the period specified in the instant corrective order, the Defendant issued a notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty on January 17, 2014, and issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 15,722,610 (in the form and quality change of KRW 15,228,90 and installation of a structure) on February 27, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff is the defendant.