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

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

(c)reparation of land to its original state after removal of, and illegal facilities from, toilets, tents, tents; and restoration to forest land to its original state;

(d) Restoration deadline: By March 31, 2015;

(e) Cautions: - Water play facilities shall be restored by utilizing the land on which the earth is located, and shall be restored by sprinkes or turfing materials so as not to cause soil erosion on the slope surface;

H. On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant order to restore the original state, the Defendant issued a disposition to perform administrative vicarious execution and collect the costs thereof (hereinafter “instant order”) with the following purport: (a) on July 26, 2015, the Plaintiff did not remove and restore artificial structures (water play facilities, toilets, portable facilities, hereinafter “instant facilities”) until July 26, 2015.

Land in this case or by type of vicarious execution method * Water play facilities (watersides, etc.) * Building (water play, flats) * Additional camping facilities (Ttain, table, etc.) * Removal - The following:

I. On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant order to reinstate the original state and the instant order, and filed an administrative appeal with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and simultaneously filed the instant lawsuit with the competent court. Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11 (including each number for additional evidence), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the restoration order of this case is unlawful due to the following defects, and thus, the order of restoration of this case should be revoked. The order of restoration of this case, which is the preceding act, is illegal, and the order of restoration of this case itself should be revoked as it is illegal and illegal.

1. Restoration order of this case.