1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owns buildings, such as offices, lodging houses, factories, warehouses, etc. (hereinafter “instant building”) located on the land owned by the Cheongju-si C and D (hereinafter “instant land”) and each of the items indicated in the “type of the object” as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant obstacles”) in the attached sheet, and operates potteries.

B. The instant land was designated and publicly announced as the site for the “F development project” in the Cheongbuk-do Public Notice E, and on July 21, 2015, the Chungcheongbuk-do Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant land and to relocate the instant building and obstacles to the land on September 9, 2015. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff reserved an objection from the Cheongbuk-do Public Corporation, the project implementer of the said development project, the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation, and the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation, and received compensation for the said expropriation.

C. On August 2, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on August 2, 2016, stating that “In the event the Plaintiff voluntarily transfers the instant obstacles by August 20, 2016, the Defendant would perform the procedure for vicarious administrative execution pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act,” and “the instant disposition” is “the instant disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 14 (which has a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The delivery of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 cannot be the object of vicarious execution under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act. The obligation to transfer the goods retained in the building is an inevitable act accompanying the performance of the duty to deliver the building, and itself does not constitute an independent obligation. Thus, insofar as the delivery or the removal of the building is not permitted, it cannot be the object of vicarious execution independently.

However, the obstacles of this case are the objects preserved in the building of this case, and their duty to move are the building of this case.