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 July 8, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing enforcement fines of KRW 50 million on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff changed the form and quality of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 294㎡ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) designated as a development restriction zone and loaded construction materials on the instant land without permission, and installed nine square meters of the temporary office on the container.

(Calculation of Non-performance Penalties is as follows). The calculation details of Non-performance Penalties shall be 12,896,00,000 square meters in building materials loaded with a change of 12,896,00,000 square meters in 294 square meters in terms of the area (the original) applied to the area (the original) of non-performance penalties not less than 12,89,456,000 square meters every year, every 12,896,000 square meters in 2 offices; 3,456,000

B. The Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit against the instant disposition without going through the previous trial procedure.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff received a corrective order and a charge for compelling execution from the Defendant while putting up and using bricks for the business of leasing and using the instant land from C, who is the owner of the instant land. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the goods located on the ground by May 30, 2014 to the Seoul Seocho-gu Road D 133 square meters, and the instant disposition that imposed a charge for compelling execution was unlawful, even though the Plaintiff did not change

In addition, D land for which the Plaintiff transferred the things placed on the road is merely KRW 450,00,00 of the officially assessed individual land price, which is merely KRW 17,95,00,00 if the enforcement fine is calculated due to the hostile act on the basis of this, the disposition of this case, which calculated the enforcement fine, is unlawful.

B. We examine the judgment, the fact that the plaintiff moved to the adjacent land Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, which was located on the land of this case before the disposition of this case, is not a dispute between the parties, but this is not a dispute.