The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B,050 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) designated as a development restriction zone in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”).

B. Around September 1985, the Plaintiff leased the instant land to C. Since September 2012, C installed 23 container boxes on the instant land and used them for church and warehouse purposes.

C. As a result of visiting and investigating the instant land on July 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) from around September 201, 2012, conducted an act of changing the form and quality of land without permission by piling up containers on the surface of 960 square meters of the area among the instant land without permission (hereinafter “instant violation”); and (b) discovered new construction of containers on the surface of 90 square meters of the remaining area on the ground of 90 square meters of the size.

After that, on September 8, 2017, the Defendant visited the instant land and confirmed that the Plaintiff removed containers for the use of the church (e.g., worship) newly constructed on the ground of 90 square meters on the said land area and restored to its original state, but confirmed that the act of changing the form and quality of a container on the above area by means of the open container register on the ground of 960 square meters still remains in violation.

On August 28, 2018, the Defendant issued a prior notice of an order to correct illegal acts in a development-restricted zone pursuant to Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act to the Plaintiff, and issued a corrective order to restore the instant violation to the original state by no later than January 3, 2019. On April 3, 2019, the Defendant issued a prior notice of imposition of a non-performance penalty to the effect that the Plaintiff would impose a non-performance penalty if it fails to restore to the original state by no later than May 3, 2019, on the ground that the said corrective order was not complied with.

E. On June 14, 2019, the Defendant issued a corrective order pursuant to Articles 30 and 12 of the Development Restriction Zone Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the said order was not restored to its original state, and accordingly, Article 30-2 of the said Act.