1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs are owners of each parcel of land indicated in the column for imposition of charges for compelling the performance of attached Form designated as a development restriction zone.

In violation of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Act”), the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiffs on December 31, 2013 on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had constructed a building, altered the purpose of use of a building, or altered the form and quality of land in a development restriction zone.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] / 【No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is unlawful for the following reasons.

Plaintiff

B The construction materials, containers, etc. on their own land were removed and restored to their original state on March through April 2013. Therefore, at the time of the corrective order, there was no violation of restrictions on activities within the development restriction zone.

B. The Defendant did not go through prior measures under the Development Restriction Act for the imposition of enforcement fines, i.e., corrective orders and enlightenments.

C. According to Article 41-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Act regarding the imposition of charges for compelling compliance, the imposition of charges for compelling compliance may be postponed until the transfer is possible for a person subject to the imposition of charges for compelling compliance who intends to transfer to a development restriction zone.

In addition, “the person to be transferred” includes not only “the person to be determined,” but also “the person to be transferred.”

The plaintiffs are expected to move into an exclusive complex for small and medium enterprises in the international logistics city, and thus it constitutes a requirement for suspending the imposition of enforcement fines, and in light of the precedent of suspending the imposition of enforcement fines in 2012 for some owners of other land who have applied for moving into the exclusive complex for small and medium enterprises.