1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff leased part of the facilities (hereinafter “instant facilities”) such as D, B, E-ground temporary buildings, 1 Dong-ro, 2 Dong-ro, mobile toilets, 1 Dong-style water tanks, and one water tank from Nonparty C, and resided therein.

On November 4, 2014, the Defendant removed the instant facilities by proxy.

Since the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the order of removal and the order of removal by vicarious removal or the order of removal by vicarious removal, or did not hear opinions, the defendant's order of removal by vicarious removal should be revoked as unlawful.

The defendant's judgment on the main safety defense was completed by the removal of vicarious execution on the facilities of this case, so the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it has no legal interest in the lawsuit.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, with respect to the facilities of this case installed without legitimate source of possession on the land D, B, and E, which are state property, the defendant ordered C, the owner of the facilities, to remove the above facilities seven times from January 20, 2010 to May 2, 2014, and ordered C, the removal of the facilities by proxy on June 9, 2014, and the removal of the facilities by proxy on November 4, 2014, and as a result, can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff is not entitled to bring a lawsuit to revoke the disposition of removal of the above facilities by the defendant for vicarious removal.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has no benefit of lawsuit.

In conclusion, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.