1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' preliminary claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A owns 1/3 shares in each of the instant land, while Plaintiff B owns 2/3 shares in each of the instant land within the development restriction zone stipulated by the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”). Each of the instant land is located within the development restriction zone stipulated by the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones.

B. According to the entry of 492.8m2 and 280m2, a compost, located on the ground of C, the Plaintiff indicated that livestock pens and composts are located on the ground of C and F. However, according to the entry of the evidence No. 2-1 (a certified copy), the said two land was combined on February 13, 2003 and became 1,965m2.

According to the entry of livestock penss 492.8m2 and 280m2, composts 280m2, which are located on the ground of the Dong, the entry of livestock pens and composts 280m2, is indicated as extending over the ground of D and G, but according to the entry of Gap evidence 2-2, the above two land was combined on February 13, 2003 and became 1,314m2.

C. On March 8, 2016, the Defendant newly constructed a steel pipe structure of 300 square meters on the E’s land without permission, and discovered the fact that 210 square meters of a general steel-frame structure (C land portion), 42 square meters of a stable of general steel-frame structure, 6.21 square meters of a warehouse of prefabricated-type panel structure, 18 square meters of a rest room, 27.9 square meters of a stable of light steel-frame structure (D land portion) without permission on the said stable and compost.

(hereinafter referred to as the "facilities of this case") d.

On April 1, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of a corrective order for voluntary restoration of a violation of Article 12 of the Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the ground that the act of extension without permission is against the provisions of Article 12

(c).