1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment, which is set forth in the following Paragraph 3, on the plaintiff's assertion that the court has repeatedly made a decision in this Court, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is quoted.

2. Parts in height:

(a) eliminate 3rd written judgments of the first instance court “ and March 23, 2017.”

B. The 3rd written judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “instant disposition”) shall be amended to “(hereinafter “self-disposition”)”.

(c) The 3rd nine (9) of the judgment of the first instance court shall be amended “1.9 of November 9, 2017” to “1.8 of November 2017,” and “the instant disposition” to “self-disposition of September 26, 2017,” respectively.

The decision of the first instance court was made on September 26, 2017 by correcting “the defendant’s decision was made on September 26, 2017.”

E. The third 12-13 of the judgment of the court of first instance stated that “The amount of the instant disposition was reduced to KRW 6,613,850” is “the disposition ordering the payment of KRW 6,275,000 of the principal of the cost of vicarious administrative execution.”

AB made it.

F. The testimony of the plaintiff at the fourth 10th 10th son of the first instance judgment shall be amended to “the plaintiff’s assertion”. G. The 6th 3-4th son of the first instance judgment cannot prove the fact that the plaintiff was the owner of the instant bar line at the time of the instant disposition.

“B shall not prove that it is the owner of the instant sub-line.”

"Revision..."

3. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is not the owner of the instant sub-party, the court also asserts that the disposition of this case ordering the payment of expenses for administrative vicarious execution for himself, who is not the owner of the instant sub-party.