1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff, who was designated as a development restriction zone, extended the building at the Cheongnam-gu, Busan, the Cheongnam-gu, Busan, the Yeong-dong, Busan, and 2-1, the following.

Accordingly, on April 1, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the enforcement fine should be imposed pursuant to Articles 30-2 and 32 of the Development Restriction Zone Act if the corrective order was not corrected within the said period (hereinafter “instant corrective order”) based on Article 30 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”) by May 1, 2014 on the ground that Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones was violated. On May 22, 2014, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to implement the said corrective order again by May 22, 2014, but, on May 23, 2014, notified the Plaintiff that the enforcement fine should be imposed on the Plaintiff on June 24, 2014, as stated in the said Table.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] . [This case’s disposition of imposition .] The entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 4 through 8, 10, 11 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Development Restriction Zone Act was enforced from July 1, 200, the corrective order and disposition of this case, which applied retroactively to the Development Restriction Zone Act, was unlawful.

B. The instant illegal building was already provided for the use of the general public, such as religious activities and visitors of the believers for a long time. In particular, considering that the removal of the buildings listed in [Attachment 4 and 5] risks of the collapse of the entire building of the scambrance and the landslide therefrom, the instant corrective order and the instant disposition are unlawful as it excessively infringes on public and private interests compared to its purpose, in violation of the principle of proportionality.

3. Determination

(a) whether the Development Restriction Zone Act is applied;