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

The Plaintiff is an owner of the B orchard 9,990 square meters, C orchard 9,990 square meters, and D forest 26,831 square meters, which is a development restriction zone, a natural green area, and a water source protection zone, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, which is a water source protection zone. The Plaintiff’s spouse is an owner of the F Forest in Busan-gun, Busan-gun

On September 11, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “it is impossible to install a building (a manager) for management in the relevant location pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”) and Article 7(1) and (4) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, even though the Plaintiff reported the construction of a building (a manager) for management in the relevant location under the light-frame structure, temporary building (hereinafter “the instant manager”).

(A) On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant on January 25, 2018, that “it is impossible to install a temporary warehouse in the relevant location” in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 7(1), (4), and (5) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, the total floor area of 100 square meters (32 square meters, 68 square meters, respectively) was not reported on the temporary building on the instant land. However, on February 2, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “it is impossible to install a temporary warehouse in the relevant location without permission under Article 12(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 7(1), (4), and (5) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act.”

(2) Article 12(1)1 Item (e) of the Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] 5 Item (e) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the judgment as to the following facts: (a) Nos. 1 and 2 are deemed to have no dispute; (b) No. 1 and 3 are deemed to have been asserted; and (c) No. 1 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.