1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On October 16, 1984, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to B,067 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City located within a development-restricted zone.

From around 2007, the Plaintiff changed the land category of the instant land and used it for the rolling stock and the workplace. Since that time, the Defendant imposed the enforcement fine on the Plaintiff.

On July 3, 2018, the Defendant issued a corrective order ordering the Plaintiff to restore the instant land to its original state, setting the period of the corrective order from July 4, 2018 to August 3, 2018 pursuant to Article 30 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “instant Act”).

On August 21, 2018, the Defendant issued the second corrective order ordering the Plaintiff to restore the instant land to its original state, setting the period of the corrective order from August 22, 2018 to September 9, 2018 pursuant to Article 30 of the Act.

On September 28, 2018, pursuant to Article 30-2(2) of the Act, the Defendant issued an order to notify the Plaintiff that the period for the performance of the corrective order is 307,196,000 won, setting the amount of the charge for compelling the performance of the instant land from October 3, 2018 to November 3, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant order disposition”). On November 30, 2018, the Defendant imposed KRW 307,196,000 on the Plaintiff a charge for compelling the performance of the instant land pursuant to Article 30-2 of the Act and Article 41-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(2) The Plaintiff’s appeal and disposition of this case (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) are unlawful for the following reasons. (hereinafter “instant disposition of this case”) : (a) there is no dispute; (b) Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6; and (c) Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of each disposition of this case.

Article 31-2 (1) 2 of the Act, which is the basis provision for each of the dispositions of this case, "amount prescribed by Presidential Decree within the scope of 50/100 of the individual land price" shall be the basis for calculating enforcement fines.