1. On August 21, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of improving administrative vicarious execution against the Plaintiffs is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

On April 8, 2014, the Defendant notified Plaintiff B of an administrative order based on the public water surface unlawful act to the effect that “Inasmuch as part of a building under management by a D organization was incorporated into a public water surface zone in Gyeonggi-gun, the Defendant ordered removal of a structure pursuant to Article 20 subparagraph 2 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act, until May 31, 2014, and, if the said period is not taken by the said deadline, it may cause disadvantages, such as removal of administrative vicarious execution, pursuant to Article 62 of the same Act.”

Although the Defendant intended to carry out administrative vicarious execution for the removal of the foregoing structure, the Defendant did not enter due to the steel door installed in E, which is the access road to Pyeongtaek-gun of the said games, and accordingly, on August 21, 2017, notified the Plaintiffs of the administrative vicarious execution guidance (hereinafter referred to as the “instant order disposition”) to the effect that “one of the steel door of an illegal structure installed in Gyeonggi-gun E in accordance with Article 55 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter “Public Waters Act”) and Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (hereinafter “instant obstacles”) shall be removed by September 8, 2017, and the said time limit shall not be removed.”

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap's statements or images, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 6 (including various numbers), and the overall purport of the pleading of this case is legitimate. The disposition of this case has procedural defects without giving the opportunity to hold a hearing or to present opinions. The defendant cannot be deemed to have the authority to order the plaintiffs to remove the obstacles of this case pursuant to Article 55 of the Public Waters Act, which is based on the disposition of this case. The obstacles of this case are not installed in the dwelling dwelling of the office where the plaintiff B resides. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant regulations.

Judgment

First, the defendant.