1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 21, 2009 to July 19, 2012, the Plaintiff operated C Farming Association (hereinafter “C”) which is a producer of environment-friendly effective retirement expenses located B (hereinafter “C”).

B. On January 28, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that each of the instant land will be restored to its original state by February 10, 2014 pursuant to Article 83 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff, while operating C, loaded food waste, etc., 11,90 cubic meters of composts, such as garbage, etc. (hereinafter “each of the instant land”), on the grounds that the Plaintiff, who is a State-owned land, was placed in a 878 square meters of land and E river 963 square meters of land (hereinafter “each of the instant land”), which is a State-owned land, and that, if the Plaintiff fails to comply with the order for restoration, the expenses for the vicarious execution will be collected from

C. As the Plaintiff failed to comply with the restoration order by February 10, 2014, the Defendant, on February 14, 2014, shall restore each of the instant land to its original state until March 4, 2014; and if the Plaintiff fails to comply with the said restoration order, he/she again notified the Plaintiff that the expenses for the vicarious execution will be collected from the Plaintiff after the vicarious execution will be collected.

On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the restoration order, and on April 3, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the date, time, person in charge of vicarious execution, expenses for vicarious execution, etc. as a warrant for vicarious execution.

E. On October 13, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment order of the cost of vicarious execution (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to pay KRW 67,019,000 for the expenses of vicarious execution by November 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. While the Plaintiff operated C, there was a fact that the Plaintiff loaded composts on each land of this case while operating C. However, the Plaintiff’s accumulated composts are less than the small amount, and most of the composts existing on each land of this case are operated by the Plaintiff.