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 February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the land of 2246 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from Guri-si, Guri-si, in order to run a cemetery-related service business that mainly performs landscaping on natural burial grounds.

B. The Defendant, without obtaining permission on March 8, 2015, established each of the instant land on the instant land, which is a development restriction zone, with a size of 169.2 square meters, 12.5 square meters in a container office, 6.25 square meters in a steel structure, 33 square meters in a steel structure rain room, 1 square meters in a sand board boiler room, and 5.25 square meters in a wood wharf (hereinafter “instant building, etc.”) and ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant land within 15 days in accordance with Article 30(1) and Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, on August 8, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 12 of the Special Act on the Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Restriction Act”) by changing the form and quality of some of the instant land in the instant case and not voluntarily remove the land (hereinafter “restricted land development restriction zone”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

If the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant disposition, on September 26, 2016, the Defendant directed the Plaintiff to take corrective measures again and to execute it by proxy.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) The construction of the instant building, etc. constitutes a minor act under Article 12(4) of the Development Restriction Zone Act, and can be done without permission or report. 2) Since the alteration of the form and quality of part of land does not result from the Plaintiff’s act, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is obligated

3. The Plaintiff’s restoration to its original state in accordance with the purport of the instant disposition, which was rendered to the Seochoman in 2017.