beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff changed the form and quality of the part of 400 square meters out of 693 square meters of B forest land owned by the Plaintiff within the development restriction zone as farmland without permission (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. Accordingly, on August 26, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 30(1) and 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, but failed to restore the Plaintiff to the original state within the corrective period, and accordingly, issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 8,208,000 on the Plaintiff as stipulated in Article 30-2 of the same Act.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff had already cultivated the instant land as dry field even at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land, and from that time, it had been used as a garden for ten years thereafter, and the instant disposition imposing enforcement fines is unlawful as the Defendant’s deviation and abuse of its discretionary power.
B. It is necessary to restrict certain activities in development-restricted areas in order to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities and to preserve the natural environment surrounding cities in order to ensure the healthy living environment for urban citizens. To this end, construction of buildings, alteration of use, installation of structures, alteration of form and quality of land, etc. in development-restricted areas under Article 12(1) of the same Act cannot be permitted. As seen above, the Plaintiff changed the form and quality of the instant land, which is forest land, into dry field. Even if the Plaintiff used the instant land as dry field from the time the Plaintiff acquired it, the Plaintiff is obligated to restore the instant land to its original state in accordance with the Defendant’s corrective order. Thus, even if the Plaintiff was under any circumstance, so long as the Plaintiff did not restore the land to its original state