1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s urban park (BB Green Park) against the Plaintiff on March 10, 2015.

(e). ;

Cautions: - The water play facilities shall be restored by utilizing them within the site, and the restoration shall be carried out with sadow presses or turfing materials, etc. so as not to cause soil and sand on the slope surface.

G. On March 10, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to restore the Plaintiff to its original state in an urban park (BN Park) with the following content (hereinafter “instant restoration order”).

H. On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant order to restore the original state, the Defendant issued a disposition to perform administrative vicarious execution and collect the costs thereof (hereinafter “instant order”) with the following purport: (a) on July 26, 2015, the Plaintiff did not remove and restore artificial structures (water play facilities, toilets, portable facilities, hereinafter “instant facilities”) until July 26, 2015.

Land in this case or by type of vicarious execution method * Water play facilities (watersides, etc.) * Building (water play, flats) * Additional camping facilities (Ttain, table, etc.) * Removal - The following:

I. On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant order to reinstate the original state and the instant order, and filed an administrative appeal with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and simultaneously filed the instant lawsuit. Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 11, 2015.

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the restoration order of this case is unlawful due to the following defects, and thus, the order of restoration of this case should be revoked. The order of restoration of this case, which is the preceding act, is illegal, and the order of restoration of this case itself should be revoked as it is illegal and illegal.

1. The case.