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 May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a report on the construction of a temporary building for temporary accommodation and temporary storage on the ground of 1,134 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On May 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered a provisional disposition not to report the construction of a temporary building on the ground that it does not constitute a temporary building under Article 20 of the Building Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a temporary building reduction report under this Court 2014Guhap7184, which was dismissed on August 13, 2015, and the Plaintiff appealed and continues to serve in the appellate court at present.

C. However, even though the Plaintiff did not accept a report on the construction of a temporary building as above, on June 2014, on the instant land, the Plaintiff constructed a 81 square meters of a temporary accommodation in light of the light board, 54 square meters of a temporary warehouse, and 12 square meters of a container temporary office (hereinafter “the instant building”).

Accordingly, on June 9, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff to restore to its original state within a specified period, but did not comply with it, and on December 30, 2014, imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 21,471,00 on the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 12, Evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff attempted to construct a farming house on the instant land for the purpose of the initial return to farming. However, the Defendant’s lack of infrastructure, such as electricity, water, sewage, and wastewater, on the said land, and the need to contact with the road under Article 44

Although it is impossible to obtain a building permit due to its lack of construction, the plaintiff's answer that it is possible if the plaintiff has such infrastructure at his own expense to hear and install the electricity and septic tanks for agriculture and develop groundwater, but the defendant did not permit the construction, and the plaintiff is subject to the Building Act provisions.