The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of 2155 square meters prior to Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

The land in this case is located within the cultural heritage protection zone of the village designated as the national folklore resource D.

On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for permission to change the current state of cultural heritage to the Defendant on December 31, 2018 for new construction of Class 2 neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) with a height of 1st floor, 131.93 square meters on the instant land.

Accordingly, the defendant requested deliberation from the Cultural Committee, and the cultural heritage committee rejected the disposition of this case on April 18, 2019 as a result of deliberation by the Cultural Heritage Committee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The entry in relevant statutes (attached Form 1) is as follows;

3. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the land of this case is located in a boundary area considerably away from the village center, and the land of this case is not visible from the village center or the main part of the village center.

Therefore, even if a new building is constructed on the land of this case, the possibility of undermining the landscape of cultural properties is insignificant, while the plaintiff is subject to excessive restriction on the exercise of property rights by the disposition of this case. The disposition of this case is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

In addition, in the village B, as shown in the attached Table 2, various restaurants, carpets, and Saturdays sales stores, such as Embrates, are running business. Therefore, denying the alteration of the current state only with respect to the land of this case goes against the principle of equality.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful since the Defendant abused its discretionary power.

4. We examine whether the instant disposition was a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, based on the circumstances known in full view of all the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments presented.

A. The instant disposition is aimed at realizing the purpose set forth in Article 1 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.