1. On January 3, 2017, the Defendant’s share of 1/10 out of 11,286 square meters of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Forest Land B, which was against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land B forest No. 11,286 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) constitutes a development-restricted area, a preserved mountainous district, etc. with forest land, the status of use of which is designated as a land transaction contract permission area. Among the instant land, there is a vinyl house or a farming shed on some of the instant land.

B. On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C to sell the instant land shares to the owner of 1/10 shares in the instant land (hereinafter “instant land shares”). On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff and C applied for permission for a land transaction contract with regard to the instant land shares for the purpose of “maintenance of the present state, such as ground trees,” jointly with C.

C. On January 3, 2017, the Defendant issued a non-permission disposition of the said application on the ground that “The temporary buildings, such as plastic houses and farming clubs, in the instant land, are maintained, and thus contravenes Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Act”) and Article 12 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, so it is possible to conduct land transactions after restoration (hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The illegality of the land of this case alleged by the Defendant does not constitute grounds for non-permission of land transaction under Article 119 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 13797, Jan. 19, 2016; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

The instant land is an speculative transaction, as well as an area where land price does not increase separately by being subject to various sanctions, such as development restriction zones. The plastic houses, etc. installed on the ground of the instant land have been much longer than August 18, 2009, in which the Plaintiff acquired the instant land shares.