1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is a manager of a road site B located in the East Sea (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiff installed a facility of 13.5 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “facilities of this case”) which remodeled Poter vehicles on the ground of the instant land, and sells the salted fish, grassland, etc.

B. On July 14, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to reinstate the instant facilities up to August 4, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land without permission.

C. On August 5, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to provide the Plaintiff with guidance for vicarious execution of the above reinstatement order, and notified the Plaintiff of vicarious administrative execution on the 20th of the same month.

The defendant, on August 21, 2015, performed the vicarious removal of the instant facilities by proxy, and completed the execution on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Class A, Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) from around 1995, the Plaintiff had been engaged in the business of selling salted fish, etc. with a white painting in consideration of the aesthetic view after having received a letter of cooperation from the Defendant around 2013, that the Plaintiff voluntarily removed spokes from the Defendant, while installing spokes on the instant land from around 1995 to selling the salted fish, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s vicarious removal of the instant facilities violates the principle of proportionality, the principle of self-regulation in administration, and the principle of protection of trust, and thus should be revoked.

(2) The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that, prior to filing the instant lawsuit, the Defendant had already removed the instant facilities, and completed the execution thereof. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

B. (1) Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act is applicable to acts ordered by an obligatory person pursuant to Article 2 of the same Act.