The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added a judgment as to the assertion made by the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion in this Court

A. The gist of the assertion and the family members of the Plaintiff were to live in a place 2 km away from the unauthorized building, which is based on the claim for relocation expenses and director expenses, to the address of Pyeongtaek-si G, and that place was not included in the instant project district, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as the relocation expenses and director expenses.

B. According to the purport of the entire arguments and Gap 23, Eul 2, 5, and the purport of the argument, the plaintiff's "Yyeong-si N" in the address of the moving-in with his family on December 26, 1997 is about a narrow and long-term river site that leads to the plaintiff's external river, which is a river, from the inside of the instant fishing place operated by the plaintiff. It is recognized that only a distance of about 50 meters (which can be calculated by the map of Gap 23) from Pyeongtaek-si where an unauthorized building in the fishing place operated by the plaintiff was located, to the river site in the fishing place located within the fishing place operated by the plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the said river site in the above fishing place was a building in the above fishing place, but its use was not residential.

On the other hand, according to the real estate lease contract (A6), the Plaintiff leased six real estate lots for the operation of the instant fishing place on May 20, 1997, stating the real estate in the contract as “five parcels outside Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, and five parcels,” and indicating only the address of the said river site and indicating only the number of parcels without omitting the address of the remaining parcels.

The above facts and the letter of confirmation (A20) prepared by P, who is a resident of the above O, and the result of the court appraisal of the first instance court, A21 in particular.