1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (a) the court of first instance revises the “2014. Apr. 4, 2015” of the third two copies of the judgment of the court of first instance to “4. Apr. 2, 2015; and (b) subsequent to the fourth 13th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance to add the following judgments as to the allegations that the plaintiff is in the trial of the court of first instance, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial at the time of appeal is not significantly different from the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance trial. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is unlawful to maintain the disposition imposing enforcement fines of KRW 50 million upon the Defendant, even though the Plaintiff completed the construction works for restoring the unauthorized form and quality change, etc., in the first instance trial. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the aforementioned disposition is unlawful. However, even if the Plaintiff completed the construction works for restoring the original state as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall suspend the imposition of new enforcement fines if the person subject to the corrective order under Article 30(1) complies with the order, and collect enforcement fines already imposed upon the person subject to the corrective order under Article 30(2)5 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, the issue of whether the enforcement fines have already been imposed after the imposition of enforcement fines is not considered at the time of the collection of enforcement fines already imposed. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise is without merit.

2. The judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim, is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.