1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff from around 2002, operated a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” on the ground, such as the land B (hereinafter referred to as “Dong”) in the area of the land (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

B. On April 5, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order with the same content as stated in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant corrective order”) on the grounds of the violation of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation of Development Restriction Zones”) with respect to installation of structures without permission, alteration of the form and quality of land, etc.

C. As the Plaintiff failed to comply with the remainder of the corrective order of this case excluding the installation portion of the D structure, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a non-performance penalty of KRW 50 million upon the Plaintiff on August 15, 2016 through a notice of imposition of non-performance penalty (hereinafter “disposition imposing non-performance penalty”).

(Specific details of imposition are as shown in attached Form 2). D.

On June 30, 2017, the Defendant seized D 18 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff on the grounds of delinquency in payment of enforcement fines (hereinafter “Attachment disposition”), and combined both the instant corrective order, imposition of enforcement fines, and seizure disposition (hereinafter “instant corrective order, etc.”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 713 (including a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not sprink up stone festivals on the ground of the land B, and did not use each land B, E, and F as a parking lot, or did not change the form and quality thereof.

B. As to G land, the time when the Plaintiff extended the building on the land above is not around December 2008 claimed by the Defendant, but the Plaintiff extended the period of restoration from the Defendant to its original state on October 25, 2016.

C. Therefore, the instant corrective order is unlawful, and it is unlawful.