1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of land B, B, and 1,196 square meters, and C, 660 square meters in a development-restricted area.

B. The Defendant: (a) ordered the Plaintiff to restore the said part to its original state on May 21, 2012, on the grounds that the Plaintiff made the said land site B and used the said land as a site yard; (b) on the grounds that the Plaintiff changed the form and quality of each of the said land C by using the said land as a site yard; (c) however, the Plaintiff did not comply with

C. Accordingly, on June 30, 2014, the Defendant notified the advance notice of imposition of each charge for compelling the performance, and issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 11,230,000 on the said land on September 12, 2014, and KRW 50,000,000 on the said land on September 15, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 8, 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff by setting a reasonable period in advance, the instant disposition was unlawful, since the Plaintiff leased the said land, and the lessee arbitrarily changed the said land and uses it, and thus, the Plaintiff, the owner of the land, should issue a corrective order to the lessee and impose a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff. However, the instant disposition imposed on the Plaintiff, the owner of the land, is an error of law that deviates from and abused the discretionary authority.

B. 1) On May 21, 2012, the Defendant was urged to restore the Plaintiff to its original state until August 15, 2012, at least two months, and the Defendant notified the imposition of charges for compelling the performance on June 30, 2014, as seen earlier. As such, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit. 2) According to Article 30(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development, the Defendant was used for the pertinent act of violation.