개발제한구역내 행위허가신청 불허처분 취소청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the second instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited as it is in accordance with the second argument as to the second argument, Article 13, 14, and the entire purport of oral argument, the defendant is difficult to recognize that the defendant applied for permission to engage in a development restriction zone for the purpose of opening the land of D, E,F, G, and H as a farmer for access to the land of his own farmland, but it is difficult to view that the defendant jointly used the case for the purpose of constructing a development restriction zone and installing a farming village for the purpose of jointly using the farmland of this case without any reasonable reasons under Article 12 (1) 4 of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 2011).
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.