1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiffs' assertion that has been repeatedly emphasized in the trial under Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is citing this as is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Additional Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the corrective order and the disposition of guidance for vicarious execution against the plaintiffs (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") are unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Around 2003, the Defendant filed an accusation against Plaintiff A and his/her birth together as a violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, and did not take active administrative measures against Plaintiff A, etc., and thus, the instant land was continuously used as an office and a warehouse site. From around 2010, the instant disposition was imposed property tax by recognizing the instant land as a miscellaneous land. Since around 2010, the instant disposition was limited to the Plaintiffs’ vested rights and trust formed by the Defendant’s approved act for a period exceeding 10 years. (2) Although Plaintiff B was not the owner of the instant land, and did not have any act installing a building or piling goods on the instant land, it is merely a signature with the person who wishes to reduce the grievance due to the circumstance by the public official in charge, and it is not recognized as a content.

B. On the first argument, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-7 and the entire purport of the pleadings, the following facts are as to the first argument: around 2003, the content of the violation was filled up on a floor with a height of about 50cc and about about 1,400m wide, about a size of about 234m wide, the piling-up of goods with a width of about 234m wide, and the soil office building with a width of about 50m wide, and the defendant on February 24, 2005 and the same year.

3. On January 2003, Plaintiff A and Nonparty D were ordered to take corrective measures and take measures against Plaintiff A and Nonparty D on the ground of the construction of a 2,800 square meters square meters and a building with a 18 square meters wide and a 18 square meters wide, and around April 2005.