1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 27, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained permission from the Defendant to engage in an act in a development-restricted area with respect to the storage of goods for the purpose of permission; (b) the type of goods; (c) the type of goods; and (d) 10t of Aluminium 10t of Aluminium; (d) 10t of copper; and (e) the period of piling up until April 1, 2009 (up to April 2, 2012 after this year, extended by April 2, 201); and (e) obtained the permission to engage in an act in a development-restricted area with regard to the storage of goods; (e) the type of goods; and (e) the period of piling up 10t of Aluminium; and (e) sold

B. On December 11, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to restore the land to its original state on the ground that the instant land, etc. (including D land, the land category of which is “former” and the category of which is “river”) and the illegal form and quality change (building-type panel) were made with respect to the Plaintiff.

C. On January 10, 2014, without complying with the above corrective order, the Plaintiff filed a report on the act with the Defendant stating that “30t, such as Aluminum, shall be placed in the instant land for one year from January 20, 2014 to operate a non-ferrous metal wholesale business (hereinafter “the instant report”),” (hereinafter “the instant report”), and the Defendant rejected the said report on the ground that it does not comply with Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). D.

On February 3, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 23, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 5, entry of Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant report on the instant act is based on Article 12(3) of the Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 19(5)(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, that the Plaintiff’s report on the instant act would store 30 tons of recyclable metals for one year on the instant land.