1. Case summary and key issue

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following circumstances.

(1) On March 5, 1972, B obtained a business license with the name of “C”, “C”, and “D, E, and F” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”), and the type of business as an ordinary restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”), and the building area on the building register of the first floor located on the instant land (hereinafter “first building”) was 28.80 square meters.

(B) Around November 1998, the 149.22 square meters of the total floor area was extended to 149.22 square meters of the 149.22 square meters of the 1st 1999.6 square meters of the 2nd 1999.6 square meters of the 1st 2nd 2nd 1999.6 square meters of the 1st 1st 2nd 2nd 1999.6 square meters of the 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1999.

(3) Around December 2015, the Plaintiff actually acquired the business from B to B, but, on December 10, 2015, transferred the instant business in the first building to the Defendant and changed only the name of the place of business to “G”, the Plaintiff filed a report on the succession of the status of the business operator and the change of the name of the place of business.

After that, the Plaintiff’s husband I removed the building No. 2 and constructed a building for the purpose of detached housing with a total floor area of 140.75 square meters (i.e., one story of 80.33 square meters and 60.42 square meters), and obtained approval for use on or around May 13, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “third building.” The Plaintiff continued to operate the instant business in the building No. 1 and changed only the name of the place of business to H” at the time of the change of the name of the place of business to the Defendant, and began general restaurant business in the building No. 3.

(4) The instant land is a water source protection area under Article 7 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act.