1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Plaintiff asserted in the court of first instance, are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of first instance were

Therefore, the reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is as follows: ① "Temporary buildings" in the second last sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "temporary buildings related to the instant business"; ③ "land" in the third sentence 4 shall be deemed as "land (hereinafter "land of this case")"; ③ "Seoul Dobong-gu Seoul, H, I, and J land" shall be deemed as "land of this case"; ② the fifth to the sixth part shall be deemed as "the fifth part or the sixth part," respectively.

the following shall be changed as stated in paragraph 1, 3. 6. 7.......

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, 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 full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence 2, Nos. 4, 5-1 and 2, prior to the construction of the temporary building of this case, the plaintiff was already publicly notified of the decision of urban planning facilities (road) as to the land of this case on April 7, 1971, and the land of this case was included in the land subject to the decision of urban planning facilities regardless of the change of the starting point, and the plaintiff was subject to the registration of a factory registration certificate related to the business of this case from the head of Dobong-gu on April 15, 199 at the time of receiving the registration certificate of the factory related to the business of this case from the head of Dobong-gu on April 15, 199."

B. The Plaintiff could not be specifically aware of the type and time of the instant business, and the registration conditions under the certificate of factory registration are the conditions of registration.