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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the parts described in paragraph (2) below, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written after the dismissal, shall be as follows, from 7th to 6th "the plaintiff shall not take any part" in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Meanwhile, in light of the Defendant’s attitude that the Plaintiff did not impose any specific sanctions on nonperformance of the obligation to report the change of the size of the restaurant in this case for a considerable period of time, and lent the site, there is room for the Defendant to believe that the Defendant was not aware of the nonperformance of the obligation to report the change in the size of the restaurant in this case.

However, in light of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleading as a whole, the Plaintiff appears to have been operating the restaurant in an unlawful state without reporting the change in the area of the business site, by using the circumstance where the Defendant was aware that it was not allowed to operate the restaurant at will, by arbitrarily expanding the restaurant, by using the circumstance where the Defendant was aware that it was not allowed, and thus, it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff’

Ultimately, we cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

① In light of the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the loan of military property with the Defendant for the purpose of the extension of the restaurant in this case and expressed the purpose of use of the leased property as “residential rather than the place of business,” the Plaintiff seems to have been aware that it is not allowed to operate the restaurant in this case by arbitrarily expanding the restaurant in this case and that it is impossible to enter into a contract for the loan of military property in the case of the extension of restaurant

② The area originally reported by the Plaintiff is considerably significant.