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 5, 2016, the Defendant newly constructed a vinyl (hereinafter referred to as “instant vinyl”) on the land B (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in Ycheon-si, Si (hereinafter referred to as “the instant vinyl”) located in the development restriction zone, and discovered the Plaintiff’s use of it as a warehouse (120 square meters) and a residence (70 square meters). On December 7, 2016, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a prior notice of disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant order”) regarding the order of restoration, the imposition of charges for compelling performance, and the measure of accusation, etc.”) pursuant to Articles 12 and 30 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as the “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”), and issued a corrective order (hereinafter referred to as “instant order”).

B. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff presented to the Defendant a written opinion that “I am going to two children and live in a place where I live in the Republic of Korea without being able to throw away a large amount of fire in the year 2012, while I am to do so, and I am to restore I am to the original state as soon as early as possible through the grace period.” (hereinafter “instant written opinion”).

C. On August 25, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that: (a) the Plaintiff would impose KRW 13,310,000 for enforcement fines calculated by applying the rate of 0.5 to the act of constructing a plastic pipe for warehouse 120 square meters and the act of constructing a residential assembly type board on the instant land in 2012; and (b) the Plaintiff would impose KRW 13,310,00 for enforcement fines.

As a result of an on-site inspection on the instant land on November 3, 2017, a public official D, and one other, who belongs to the Defendant, confirmed that the warehouse area was reduced to 20 square meters, but still was loaded therein, and that the Plaintiff’s family members were not able to properly restore to the original state, such as where they reside in a plastic house. Accordingly, the Defendant calculated the same amount as the attached Table on November 23, 2017, on which the warehouse area was reduced to 20 square meters, and the housing area was 70 square meters.