1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (1) On May 10, 2016, the Defendant discovered the fact that sand has come to the night without obtaining permission under the proviso of Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), which is located in the development restriction zone, on the part of the Plaintiff located in the development restriction zone. On June 1, 2016, based on Article 30 of the Act on Special Measures, the Defendant issued a corrective order to restore the said illegal act to the original state until June 30, 2016. On July 6, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of a non-performance penalty based on Article 30-2 of the Act on Special Measures and Article 41-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and submitted to the Plaintiff a written opinion on whether the non-performance penalty will be imposed to the original state unless it is performed by the set deadline.

A person who owns an object shall be punished by a fine for compelling the performance under Article 30-2 of the Act on Special Measures and Article 41-2 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on April 11, 2017, on the following grounds: (a) the date of the act of using a charge for compelling the performance of the illegal content of the owner of the object; (b) the 2,907, 97, 682, 000 officially assessed land price 1,144,000 x 2,907 square meters x 2,907 square meters x 2,907 square meters x ; (b) the Defendant conducted a field investigation on July 29, 2016; and (c) again confirmed the existence of the above illegal act on August 12, 2016; and (d) on April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff calculated the instant fine for compelling the performance of the enforcement of the penalty to the Plaintiff on the following basis:

Article 22(1) of the Act provides that the Plaintiff shall file an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission (hereinafter “Administrative Appeals Commission”) on June 26, 2017.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) Whether the instant disposition is lawful, the Plaintiff only leased the said land to D on November 1, 2015, and realizing it.