1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was charged with summary summary order of KRW 2 million on August 28, 2015, which was issued a fine of KRW 2,000,00,000 for a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, based on the facts constituting a crime that “around August 31, 2015, the Daegu District Court (hereinafter “the instant forest damaged part”) was located in Da, B, 556 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the instant forest damaged part”), and cut and cut residential containers and converted the use of mountainous district.”

(The Plaintiff filed a formal trial against the above summary order with the Daegu District Court resident stay in 2016 High Court. However, on June 28, 2016, the above court rendered a judgment of conviction of the above criminal facts and sentenced a fine of KRW 1 million. (B) The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On February 1, 2016, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a design plan for recovery from the damaged part of the instant case by February 19, 2016 to obtain approval, but failed to implement the plan. On February 22, 2016, the Defendant submitted the plan for recovery to the Plaintiff by March 10, 2016, which was approved by the Plaintiff, and completed recovery and received completion inspection by March 25, 2016, and notified the Plaintiff that the cost for vicarious execution will be collected from the Plaintiff as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). In the event that the subject of location or the method of vicarious execution of quantity, B illegal diversion area facilities (containers) and a third party of forest damaged area due to embling, the forest damaged area shall be subject to vicarious execution and the expenses shall be claimed.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, obvious facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s husband D, the owner of B at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, shall file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land against F, the owner of E, the neighboring land.