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 June 5, 2017, Defendant employees visited B of Gohap-gun, and investigated that “the Plaintiff, from around 2012, has been using the said land as a cement block house of 40.0 square meters and 66.46 square meters in a light steel framed warehouse (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground.”

B. Accordingly, on June 14, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to remove the instant building by July 13, 2017 to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff refused to comply therewith.

In other words, on July 19, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to take corrective measures by August 18, 2017.

C. On October 30, 2017, the Plaintiff refused to comply with the above corrective order, and the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 2,901,000 for compelling the Plaintiff to remove the instant building (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 11, 13 and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff constructed the instant building in a temporary room by preparing a place where the Plaintiff’s consciousness and the grandchildren, etc. live in a remote place, and asked the Gun office’s civil service center for the construction of the instant building upon obtaining permission on or around September 2011. The Plaintiff responded that the light-weight steel structure was installed without permission, and that the light-weight steel structure seller and the contractor are also installed without permission.

Therefore, it is unreasonable to impose excessive penalty surcharges on the building of this case which does not harm other neighbors for the past five years, and it does not conform to equity in the enforcement of the law.

(b) Entry in the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes;

C. (1) The Plaintiff is recognized as having built and used the instant building without filing a building report under Article 14 of the Building Act. Thus, the instant building ought to be deemed to be subject to removal under Article 79(1) of the Building Act.

(2) and as seen earlier.