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 each forest land B, C, D, and E in Gyeonggi-gu.

B. On March 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication with the Defendant on the purport of the claim that “the respondent shall perform the obligation to compensate for the pest control area related to the Stoppy Prevention Act” with the head of Pyeongtaek-gu as the respondent. The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s petition for administrative appeal on May 21, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s instant judgment on the ground of its assertion recognized that “a head of Pyeongtaek-gu directed the Plaintiff on February 8, 2017 and November 20, 2017 that he/she is likely to infection with pine wilt,” and the Plaintiff did not receive the notification of the foregoing guidance from the head of Pyeongtaek-Gun.

Therefore, the ruling of this case is null and void on the basis of false facts.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that, in principle, a litigation for revocation shall be subject to the original disposition of an administrative agency (the original disposition principle), but only where an administrative appeal is filed on the ground of an inherent illegality in the ruling itself, the adjudication of the administrative appeal may also be subject to the revocation lawsuit. "Unauthorized illegality" referred to in Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to an unlawful act of authority or composition of the ruling agency, procedure or form of the ruling, or illegality of the ruling procedure, which is only limited

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14661, Sept. 12, 1997). In addition, in order for a defective administrative disposition to become null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect has violated important parts of the law and regulations. In order to determine whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law shall be examined from a teleological perspective.