1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased a forest land of 684 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located in a development restriction zone from B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 22, 2014. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased a fishing place management office, which is a building permitted on the instant land, (hereinafter “previous building”) from D Village Association (representative E), which is a building located on the instant land, from May 23, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 4, 2014.

B. The Defendant, through a field investigation on July 26, 2016, found that a building illegally constructed on the ground of the instant land (a assembly-type printing team manager 58.6 square meters and a wood 7.26 square meters; hereinafter “instant building”) and that a 584 square meters of the instant land has changed to the form and quality of a parking lot without permission.

C. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to remove and restore the site to its original state pursuant to Articles 12(1) and 30(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”) on September 13, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The said corrective order was served on the Plaintiff on August 4, 2016.

Nevertheless, on September 30, 2016, the Defendant issued the same corrective order to the Plaintiff on October 28, 2016, setting the time limit for correction, and again issued the same order. Upon accepting the Plaintiff’s request for extension of time limit, on November 8, 2016, the Defendant issued the same corrective order to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2016.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition】 The evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter, the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lawsuit shall be deemed lawful ex officio.

(a) An occupant of a building constructed in violation of the Building Act by an administrative agency on September 30, 2016, and on November 8, 2016, as to whether each corrective order was lawful.