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 in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The first instance judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the difference between the total area" and the third in the first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the second instance judgment") shall be followed as follows.

【The area exceeding the permitted area is limited to 62 square meters if the Plaintiff claims excluding the eavess, entrances, etc., and some of them are used for the purpose of the daily home room, such as night-time accommodation, warehouse, toilet, etc. to store daily necessities, even if they are used for the purpose of the daily home room, the Plaintiff’s residential room area recognized by images of each photograph (No. 4-1, No. 2 of the evidence No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4) submitted based on the assertion that the Plaintiff used it for the purpose of the daily home room is considerably small (in full view of the distance between the wall and the wall’s wall, distance between the wall and the side wall’s wall, the size and concentration of the household, and the form of placement

In light of the total area of the restaurant in this case and the ratio of the area of the room for residence, although toilets and warehouses (No. 4-3-6) in the restaurant in this case use both for business use and residence, their main purpose appears to be business use, and the part which can be evaluated as being used for residence can be considerably less than that of the reported area in light of the fact that the toilet and warehouse (No. 4-3-6) in the restaurant in this case are used for business use and residence, the area actually used for the restaurant in this case seems to exceed the reported area, and the plaintiff's actual use of the restaurant in this case is deemed to exceed the reported area. On the 7th judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff

Meanwhile, as seen above, the Plaintiff is not obliged to report the change of the size of the instant restaurant for a considerable period of time.