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 is the owner of B orchard 182 square meters in Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

The instant land is designated as a development restriction zone under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”).

B. On June 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective order under Article 30 of the Development Restriction Zone Act to reinstate the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was found to have newly built a light-scale structural manager with the area of 71 square meters in the instant land (hereinafter “instant manager”), and on June 3, 2013, the Defendant violated Article 12(1) of the same Act.

C. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not restore the instant management company to its original state in accordance with the corrective order, such as using the instant management company without permission for the alteration of its use, etc., the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act, on four occasions from November 21, 2013 to March 7, 2016, imposed a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff, and on July 1, 2016, issued a warning to impose a non-performance penalty if the instant management company did not remove the instant management company. On August 9, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 2,804,500 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The details of a non-performance penalty imposed on the owner of the violation (unauthorized building), such as the location violator (building) and the area for structural use by the owner of the violation (building) B, the size of the 71,804,50 / [mark] The imposition of the non-performance penalty / 【Ground for Recognition】 The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 14 through 17, Eul evidence Nos. 14 through 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including the number of branches

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 owned a manager with a size of 49.84m2 newly constructed and expanded by obtaining a building permit from the Defendant, but the Defendant was partially destroyed and repaired due to typhoons around 2003.