1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On December 10, 2013, the Defendant filed the Defendant’s Intervenor Intervenor C.

1. This court's explanation concerning this part of the reasons for the disposition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The reasoning of this court as to this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the part of “A. Violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act” in Articles 3 through 16 of the judgment of the first instance court, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

A. The instant land in violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act was designated as “a preserved green zone” as prescribed by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). According to Article 76 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 71 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25050, Dec. 30, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), and attached Table 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, “a lodging facility” and “a multi-family house” as prescribed in subparagraph 15 of attached Table 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25786, Nov. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) may not be constructed

Although the Defendant Intervenor filed an application for a building permit using the instant building as a detached house, its substantial use constitutes a multi-family house, which is one of the lodging facilities, preliminaryly, as it constitutes a multi-family house, the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

A person shall be appointed.

3. The reasoning of this court concerning this part of the judgment on the defendant's main defense is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Whether the disposition in this case is legitimate, and the use of the instant building is divided into detached houses and accommodation facilities, and the use thereof is not a detached house.