1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On March 14, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a building report within a development restriction zone.

1. The grounds for the judgment of the court in this part of the grounds for the disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the relevant statutes are as stated in each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Determination

(a) Article 12(1) of the Development Restriction Zones Act shall not construct buildings, change the purpose of use, install structures, change the form and quality of land, cut bamboo and trees, divide land, store articles, etc. within development restriction zones: Provided, That Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] 5(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zones Act

(3) In the case of item (c), a house which is constructed on the land owned by another person prior to the designation of a development restriction zone and which cannot be extended or reconstructed due to the lack of the landowner's consent is newly constructed in a village district pursuant to Article 12 (1) 2 of the Act, the act may be performed with permission from the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, the Special Self-Governing Province Governor, or the head

According to the above provision, construction of buildings, alteration of the form and quality of land, etc. is prohibited in a development restriction zone designated to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities and to preserve the natural environment surrounding cities in order to ensure the healthy living environment for urban citizens. However, exceptional permission can be exceptionally granted only when meeting the requirements under Article 12(1)2 of the Development Restriction Zone Act. Such exceptional permission is beneficial to the other party and belongs to the discretion of an administrative agency.

In addition, the judicial review of the administrative act belonging to the discretionary act is to examine whether the court does not make its own conclusion in consideration of the existence of public interest judgment based on the discretion of the administrative agency and only whether the act in question is a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, and the examination of such deviation or abuse of discretionary power is erroneous.