1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 3,034,80 on the Plaintiff on January 2, 2018 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 635 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Guri-si, Guri-si.

B. The Defendant, on August 28, 2017, provided two containers with residential facilities on the instant land (hereinafter “instant containers”).

(2) On September 21, 2017, the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”) confirming the existence of a container and installing the container in this case on the land of this case to the Plaintiff

(2) On October 31, 2017, the Defendant issued a second order to correct and correct the restoration to the Plaintiff on the ground that the period of restoration to the original state was within 15 days from the delivery date of the delivery date of the original state, and the Defendant issued a second order to correct and correct the restoration to the original state within 10 days from the delivery date of the original state.

(hereinafter referred to as "instant corrective order" in total).

On November 9, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the enforcement fine will be imposed if the Plaintiff did not restore to its original state pursuant to the instant corrective order within 30 days from the date of service.

On December 29, 2017, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the instant land, and on January 2, 2018, issued a disposition to impose KRW 3,034,800 on the Plaintiff on the ground of Article 30-2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,034,800 to the charge for compelling the performance under the instant disposition.

F. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said Adjudication Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 26, 2018.

The plaintiff was served with a written ruling around April 5, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Evidence Nos. 1 to 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant container C installed without the Plaintiff’s future permission.

Disposition against containers;