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 this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the first instance court’s fourth nine to nine (19). Thus, the reasoning of this court’s judgment citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(A) If the disposition of this case is deemed to have been abused or abused from discretion or due to a defect in the building permit disposition, which is a beneficial administrative disposition, due to the applicant’s concealment or other fraudulent act, the applicant’s revocation of the disposition is anticipated. Thus, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the trust interest in the above disposition, and even if the administrative agency did not consider it, it does not abuse discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7760, Aug. 23, 1991). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff obtained the building permit of this case by false or other unlawful means, such as submitting B Village Business Plan, Articles of incorporation, minutes, etc., made by false means, and thus, the possibility of revocation was anticipated. Accordingly, the Plaintiff could not invoke the trust interest in the above disposition, and even if the Defendant did not consider it, it does not abuse discretionary power.

Even if the Plaintiff’s trust interests are considered, in light of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones enacted to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities and preserve the natural environment surrounding cities to ensure the healthy living environment for urban citizens, the public interest to be protected through the instant disposition is greater than the disadvantage the Plaintiff suffers from the instant disposition. Thus, there is no violation of the principle of proportionality or any other violation of discretionary authority.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff.