Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion is added under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) In addition, the first instance court’s finding of facts and determination that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable even if the Plaintiff filed an appeal and the evidence submitted in the first instance court did not significantly differ from the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance court, and the first instance court’s finding of facts and determination are also justifiable. [The third instance court’s holding that “D” is “The roads of this case,” which are “D” in the third instance of the first instance court’s judgment. The above precedents do not establish a placement plan regarding the establishment of gas stations in a development restriction zone pursuant to the Development Restriction Zone Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, or if the previous placement plan becomes invalid due to changes in circumstances to the extent that it is not recognized as identical with the previous placement plan to the cancellation of the development restriction zone, the permitting agency should determine whether to grant permission individually and specifically, taking into account the provisions and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes suggesting the establishment standards for the placement plan, which are applicable to the roads in the development restriction zone of this case, including D, and evidence No. 308.