1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s application for approval of change of factory type and the previous disposition 1) The Plaintiff is an incorporated foundation B (hereinafter “B”) designated as a development restriction zone.

(C) The site of this case is 9,740 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant factory site”) in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu.

(A) The term “existing factory” refers to a primary-processed and leather manufacturing factory (the size of manufacturing facilities is 901.42m2m2, the size of ancillary facilities is 724.47m2, hereinafter “existing factory”).

(2) On March 20, 2017, the Defendant, on March 20, 201, operated the instant factory site, manufactured ready-mixed factories of the size of manufacturing facility size of 662.29 square meters and ancillary facilities size 2,299.1 square meters on the instant factory site (hereinafter “instant factory”).

2) Application for approval of change of factory type with the content that the applicant will carry on the ready-mixed manufacturing business by constructing the applicant (hereinafter “instant application”).

The Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”).

(2) Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act provides that a person who intends to engage in an act under Article 18 (Change of Use) of the same Act shall not be permitted to construct a building or to change the use of a building in a development restriction zone pursuant to Article 12(1). However, a person who intends to engage in an act under Article 18 (Change of Use) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is permitted to do so with the permission of the Mayor. Thus, Article 18(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act (i.e., an urban factory) revised on September 8, 2015 and changes a factory from a development restriction zone to an urban factory into a type. (ii) On March 28, 2017,

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s revocation of the previous disposition is an appeal suit seeking the revocation of the previous disposition (hereinafter “transfer lawsuit”).

(B) On October 17, 2017, the District Court rendered a judgment that the previous disposition is revoked on the following grounds (the instant disposition by the District Court is applied for permission to construct buildings or change the purpose of use in accordance with the Act on the Development Restriction Zones.