1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 30, 2014 and February 4, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff for a building violating the Building Act owned by the Plaintiff as follows.

B. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above corrective order, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement and disposition of the charge for compelling the performance, and the instant disposition imposing KRW 22,314,000 for the charge for compelling the performance on December 7, 2016.

A CD [Ground for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant disposition should be invalidated or revoked on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.

The defendant is a building in violation of the Building Act, which is part of the six capitals that were permitted or reported.

B. Article 79(1) of the Building Act provides, “The permitting authority may order the owner, etc. of a non-compliant building to remove, rebuild, extend, repair, change the purpose of use, prohibit, or restrict the use of, or take other necessary measures.” Considering that the Defendant issued an order to remove, without considering other necessary measures with respect to the said six moneys, the Plaintiff without considering any condition against the Plaintiff; and that the Defendant issued a removal order with respect to the Plaintiff even though the government implemented a policy to promote the lawfulness of unauthorized livestock pens on January 16, 2014, the Defendant issued a removal order against the Plaintiff, the corrective order issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on December 30, 2014 and February 4, 2015 is also unlawful and illegal.

C. The instant disposition prevents the Plaintiff from suffering economic damage due to the instant disposition, such as that the Plaintiff shall pay all the money difficult to raise pigs as a charge for compelling the performance. Therefore, the instant disposition is excessively harsh.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Articles 11(1) and 14(1)5 of the Building Act as to the existence of the grounds for disposition and the 16 unit money companies are buildings violating the Building Act.