1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 1, 2008, the Plaintiff is a business entity that runs “C” in the trade name of “C,” whose location is “G, G,” and whose location is “C.”

B. On March 22, 2016, the Defendant confirmed on March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff’s land D, B, E, and F (referring to approximately 4,140 square meters in total; hereinafter “instant land”) that was located in the development-restricted zone, that 416 square meters in steel pipe structure in the resting room, 60 square meters in the pipe structure in the resting room, 66 square meters in the pipe structure in the warehouse use, 18 square meters in the container structure in the warehouse, 21.6 square meters in the pipe structure for the storage use, 191 square meters in the pipe structure for the storage use, 12 square meters in the container structure for the resting room, 12 square meters in the container structure for the rest room, 18 square meters in the container structure for the rest room, and 27 square meters in the prefabricated structure for the resting room use (hereinafter “the instant building without permission”).

C. On April 14, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order with the purport that construction of the instant building constitutes a violation of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation of Development Restriction Zones”) to restore it to its original state until May 16, 2016 (hereinafter “instant corrective order”).

Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff did not correct it, on November 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a pre-announcement of the imposition of a non-performance penalty, stating that if the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant corrective order by December 26, 2016, it would be expected to impose a non-performance penalty under Article 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act, and that he would present his opinion until December 26, 2016.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff still did not correct it, and the Defendant did not comply with the instant corrective order on April 4, 2017.