beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The circumstances leading up to the disposition are the owners of B forest land, C, D forest land, E forest land, and F forest land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, including the said land, at the Government-si, which is a development restriction zone.
On May 24, 2017, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the Plaintiff on June 13, 2017, stating that a structure is installed without permission in violation of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as “Restriction on Activities within Development Restriction Zones”) and accompanied by banking (damage to forest).
Upon the Plaintiff’s failure to restore to its original state, the Defendant imposed a penalty for compelling the performance on the Plaintiff to impose a total of KRW 50,293,50 won on the Plaintiff on March 30, 2018, which orders the Plaintiff to restore to its original state by April 30, 2018 (the first order), May 8, 2018, which orders the Plaintiff to restore to its original state by May 18, 2018, which orders the Plaintiff to restore to its original state by May 19, 2018, which imposes a penalty for compelling the performance on the Plaintiff on June 5, 2018, which is the imposition of a penalty for compelling the performance, and on June 26, 2018, which is the sum of KRW 50,293,350 as indicated below.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The fact that: (a) the volume-added rate of imposition of the officially assessed individual land price (amount imposed) of the size in violation of lot number 70 142,400 0.32,990,400 F Form and quality 3142,400 0.3128,160 C Form and quality 237 182,900 313,004,190 E Form and quality 99208,300 6,186,510 B Form and 416 208,300,300 30.325,995,840 C structure installation 182,900,51,262,000 F structure installation 142,942,405,616 4,605,630,614,605,610
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of this case is the land C, D, E, and F that did not order the restoration of the original state to the original state in advance notice and the first step.