1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The course and lot number size of the act, date and time of the act, B illegally extended prefabricated-type store in 2004, the pipe prefabricated-type store for illegally extended single houses in 2004, the pipe 24 2004, the pipe prefabricated-type store for illegally extended single houses in 2008 B C illegally extended 2004 B C in 3004 2004, the prefabricated-type store for illegally extended storage 3004 2004, E illegally illegally used 1504 2004, the pipe Pizz-type 1004, the pipe Pi-type 1804, the pipe Pi-type used for the simplified reduction-type 1004 204;

A. The Plaintiff, as the lessee of a parcel of land, including the wife population B, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”), and the above ground building, was extended and installed without permission as follows:

B. After the Defendant discovered the foregoing illegal matters, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the corrective order for the non-violationed building on April 18, 201. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant promoted correction of the non-violationed building, and was under the direction to promote correction of the non-violationed building and to impose and collect the non-violationed building charges on July 5, 201.

C. After that, on February 5, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 9,557,130 on the Plaintiff the charge for compelling compliance pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 31, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant land and the building on its ground were leased to a third party for environmentally friendly farming and fish farming, and the walked the walk by altering the walk, which was located for the purpose of farming in the process of environmentally friendly farming and fish farming, and that part of the walk was inevitably extended in the course of remuneration because the existing building was worn out to be old and

Currently, the buildings and greenhouses used by the plaintiff are located.