1. The Defendant’s disposition of notification of a warrant of vicarious administrative execution against the Plaintiff on December 15, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

. Case history

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in manufacturing and selling scrap metal in the land for factory 192-5 2,447 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(b) 1) Implementation of an urban development project: Public announcement, etc. of a plan for urban development of a replotting method under the Urban Development Act on October 24, 2006 (Public announcement of Gwangju Metropolitan City No. 2006-157), public announcement of an implementation plan on January 24, 2007 (Public announcement of Gwangju Metropolitan City No. 2007-9), public announcement of a replotting plan (Public announcement of Gwangju Metropolitan City No. 201-685), November 10, 201 (Public announcement of Gwangju Metropolitan City No. 2011-685), and public announcement of the designation of a replotting plan on June 15, 2013 (Public announcement of Gwangju Metropolitan City No. 2013-400);

C. The Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Land Expropriation”) subject to expropriation on January 22, 2015: 2 forms of the steel framed (12.8* 2.38) entrances on the ground of the instant land, 425.6 square meters of the concrete floor, 120 square meters of bridges (3.5-4H) respectively (hereinafter “contestable objects subject to compensation”).

2) Commencement date of expropriation: March 17, 2015.

The defendant, on December 2, 2015, did not transfer the obstacles of this case by December 14, 2015, to the plaintiff on December 2, 2015, claiming compensation for damages and taking administrative measures (such as filing a named lawsuit) in accordance with the relevant provisions.

“In the event that the content was notified,” and on December 14, 2015, the second instance “in the event that the paper does not transfer the paper to December 24, 2015, the paper will bring an action for clarification.”

“Around December 15, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the warrant of vicarious administrative execution that “the instant order shall be voluntarily transferred on two occasions” (the foregoing notice, including the first and second notifications, hereinafter referred to as “instant order”). On December 15, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the warrant of vicarious administrative execution that “a third party shall be vicariously executed under Article 3(2) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act due to his/her failure to comply with the present order.”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). See the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and Eul evidence 3, respectively.