1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the land owner who purchased the land C (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Si interesting City located within the development-restricted zone B and acquired the ownership by transfer.

Both the Plaintiff and B have resided in the same area since the designation of the development restriction zone.

[New-B-21519] Non-permission disposition for an act of development restriction zone: Building and construction-21519 / B's application for permission for an automobile liquefied natural gas filling station may result in deprivation of the right to apply at the time of designation of the remaining development restriction zone; thus, at the time of designation of a large number of development restriction zones, residents can apply for permission for a liquefied petroleum gas filling station under the same conditions at the time of designation of the same development restriction zone; permission for an act not in accordance with the placement plan may result in the poor development of the development restriction zone; therefore, at the time of Sinstitu, reasonable measures are prepared for the enactment of municipal ordinances on placement planning services and implementation of placement planning services for reasonable placement plan, and efforts are made to realize the value of public interest, achieve the purpose of designation of development restriction zone, and to manage the development restriction zone in good faith in order to achieve

B. On September 21, 2015, B filed an application for permission to engage in an act within a development restriction zone (new construction-related litigation) with respect to the instant land, and the Defendant rejected B’s application for permission on September 23, 2015 on the following grounds:

(A) No. 2. B, dissatisfied with this, filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the appeal was dismissed on February 17, 2016.

(A) Evidence 3. (c)

On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff and B filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in the act in the development restriction zone on the instant land. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant rejected the said application for permission on the following grounds:

(Evidence A. 5)