This Court rejects the instant lawsuit that has been changed interchangeally in this Court.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit, on October 27, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily maintain (delet) and restore the roof roof tent in the Seoul Park, which is located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, by November 25, 2014, and at the same time, ordered the restoration to the original status by administrative vicarious execution pursuant to the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and sought a revocation of the disposition ordering the restoration to the original status and the disposition ordering the revocation of the order.

However, according to the letter of receipt in Eul (the first letter), it is recognized that the plaintiff was aware of the disposition after receiving a temple which entered the details of an administrative disposition imposing the duty of restoration on October 27, 2014 based on Article 25(2) of the Urban Park, Green Areas, etc. Act and the advanced disposition based on Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff received the first order (B) from October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that it constitutes an administrative disposition on the sole basis of the content, such as the absence of any indication that the Plaintiff may file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the date on which the disposition was known. However, the first order (B 1) was made in the same manner as the third order (B 3) of December 10, 2014 when the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the initial administrative disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff had different dates from the third order (B 1) of December 10, 2014. Moreover, inasmuch as it is deemed that the imposition and the purport of the duty of restoration and vicarious execution are clearly stated in the relevant law and has been made in the prescribed form as a disposition prescribed by the law, even if there are grounds for violating the procedures prescribed by the partial Administrative Procedures Act, it can be separate grounds for revocation as to the disposition, and it cannot be denied the arrival of the disposition itself.

The plaintiff's assertion.