1. On December 20, 2016, the Defendant imposed a charge for compelling the performance of KRW 13,864,090 against the Plaintiff, which was KRW 8,165,430.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 2, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to correct (e.g., removal, etc.) the same violation (hereinafter “instant violation”) as indicated in the following table regarding detached housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) by June 22, 2016; and issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to correct (e.g., removal, etc.) by July 27, 2016.

B

B. On August 9, 2016, the Defendant directed the Plaintiff to impose a non-performance penalty of KRW 13,864,090 on the violation of this case, and issued a corrective order to correct the violation by September 9, 2016.

C. On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff did not comply with the corrective order against the instant violation, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing enforcement fines of KRW 13,864,090 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on March 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 12-1 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant house is a single house in which the Plaintiff, a farmer, is constantly residing, and thus, it should be reflected in the calculation of enforcement fines, but the instant disposition that was calculated without reflecting

(b) Relevant regulations: as shown in the attached Form;

C. The plaintiff does not dispute that the plaintiff is regularly residing in the house of this case, but is disputing whether the plaintiff is a farmer.

The above evidence, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 11, 13 through 17-3, Eul evidence and images Nos. 20-2, 21-2, and 30, and each fact-finding reply to the head of the office of the Seosan National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service for the United States Agricultural Products in the court as well as the whole purport of the pleadings as follows. In other words, the plaintiff constructed the housing of this case on the ground of the forest land B located in Seosan-si (area 16793 square meters) around 2010.