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

A. The Plaintiff’s wife B completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 20, 2015 with respect to the land of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 182 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which was designated as a development restriction zone, and the Plaintiff actually existed over the said land and the F land on the unauthorized Building Register issued by the Defendant.

A fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant building around October 13, 2015, and 29 square meters out of the said building was destroyed, which was registered as the owner of 42.12 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of 330 square meters prior to Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “D”) on the ground of sale as of November 4, 2015. On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit for a Class II neighborhood living facility (general restaurant) with the Defendant on the ground of the above land and the total floor area of 230.96 square meters. On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained the said building permit (hereinafter “the initial building permit”).

C. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant pointed out that the result of the Board of Audit and Inspection’s audit conducted on the instant D land was a non-filled land and a neighborhood living facility, and on July 1, 2016, the Defendant resided in the Plaintiff in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”) for a period of at least five years, but at least three years and eight months; the purpose of the building allowed to be constructed was only a detached house, but the building site to be constructed was filed as a neighborhood living facility; the building site to be constructed was located more than 50 meters away from the boundary of a national river, but it was inappropriate for the Plaintiff to cancel the initial building permit. On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff first notified the Defendant of the revocation of the initial building permit on the ground that the construction permit was obtained against the Defendant on July 6, 2016.