The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 13, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) leased, in the name of wife D, the FJ 88 square meters, G maintenance 1,002 square meters, H maintenance 2,195 square meters, and 1,445 square meters in each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) operated a fishing place in the name of “J fishing place” from around that time with the trade name of “J fishing place” at that time.

B. On May 201, the Plaintiff, under an agreement with E, built a building of a size of 65 square meters which is composed of steel and lightboards on the instant land, G land, H land, and I’s land (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land, and installed a bar house of a size of 2,400 square meters which is composed of vinyl and steel poles on December 201 (hereinafter “instant house”).

The Plaintiff used the instant building as a management room of a fishing place, and the instant house was used as an indoor fishing place.

C. Meanwhile, after the conclusion of the above lease agreement, both E-owned and neighboring E-owned land of this case were used as a parking lot for a fishing place and a restaurant operated by the Plaintiff following the conclusion of the said lease agreement.

On May 201, 201, GH I’s illegal construction (new construction) fishing place (new construction) indoor fishing place 2,400 for the year of the act of illegality in location G HI’s structural use, 65 on the 5th, 2011, the steel and light-line store 605 on the surface and quality change parking lot of L land on May 201, 201, the Yangju Mayor, May 26, 201, deemed on December 26, 201 under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Restriction Restriction Zone Act”), which the Plaintiff and E were applied to the Plaintiff and E at the time of the imposition of the second enforcement fine, is currently amended, but the provisions applied in this case do not have any substantial difference in the contents before and after the amendment of the Act, and thus, it is indicated only as a development restriction zone law, unless it is necessary to distinguish the previous Act separately.

In violation of Article 12 and Article 11 of the Building Act,