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 July 30, 1971, the Plaintiff had resided in the Seoul Forest Land B (hereinafter “instant land”)’s residential structure of the panel on the ground, which was designated as a development-restricted zone, within 28.6 square meters of the building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On August 9, 2018, the Defendant issued a corrective order ordering the Plaintiff to restore the instant building to its original state on the land without permission.

C. On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant corrective order, and the Defendant issued a prior notice of imposition of enforcement fines to the Plaintiff that “if the instant building is not voluntarily removed by October 5, 2018, it would impose KRW 400,400 for enforcement fines.”

Since the plaintiff did not correct the violation even after October 20, 2018, the defendant issued a disposition imposing 400,400 won for compelling the performance to the plaintiff on October 20, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case").

A. [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 26, 27, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In around 1995, the plaintiff asserted that the building of this case was acquired and resided there until now, but the defendant misunderstood that the building of this case was newly constructed and thus the disposition of this case was taken.

In addition, many old unauthorized buildings around the building of this case were excluded from the subject of the charge for compelling execution according to the resolution of the Eunpyeong-gu Council, and the defendant did not actually impose the charge for compelling execution.

Nevertheless, the Defendant imposed charges for compelling compliance only on the instant building on November 13, 2017, but filed an administrative lawsuit against the Plaintiff, thereby dissatisfied therewith. The instant disposition was considered to be retaliation against the withdrawal of the Plaintiff by the Defendant, which revealed the Defendant’s fault in the instant lawsuit, to the effect that the Defendant would not impose charges for compelling compliance.