1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons for this part of the disposition are as follows: (a) the court: (b) stated the reasons for this part of the judgment of the first instance; (c) stated that “as of October 29, 2015,” “as of November 26, 2015 and December 1, 2015,” and “as of December 1, 2015, acquired ownership”; (d) purchased “as of February 2, 2016 to January 2, 2017”; and (c) added “as of January 8, 2017” to “as of February 2, 2016 to “as of January 1, 2017,” and (d) cited “as of subparagraph 3, as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the case where “wholly calculated” as “wholly calculated”, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and the grounds for the court's reasoning concerning each of the above parts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act sees the existence or absence of substantive defects under Article 58(1)4 and (3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and Article 56(1) [Attachment 1-2, etc.] of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, comprehensively taking account of each of the provisions of attached Table 1-2, the permission for changing the form and quality of land under Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall be prohibited.

If the case is defined as an indefinite concept, the outline of the prohibition

In determining whether it is a case, administrative agencies have discretion, so the permission is subject to discretionary action.

On the other hand, a court that determines whether a discretionary act is illegal shall examine whether the act in question is a deviation or abuse of discretion without drawing an independent conclusion, taking into account the room for the public interest judgment based on the discretion of an administrative agency. Such deviation or abuse of discretion.