1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the entry in this case by the court of first instance are as follows: ① “The degree of elevation prior to the cutting of the site of the camping ground management zone to be constructed by the plaintiff is 17∑ or more,” and ② the degree of gradient prior to the cutting of the site of the camping ground management zone to be constructed by the plaintiff is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, as it is stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since Article 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are added to the judgment of the court of first instance, “the degree of elevation prior to the cutting of the site of the camping ground management zone to be constructed by the plaintiff is equal to or greater than 17∑” (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du14954, Jan. 20, 201).

2. Details to be added; and

A. Even if the Plaintiff cut the surface of the mountainous district of the instant land, it is alleged that the Plaintiff constructed a building with a height of 4.8 meters, 38.4 meters in length, and 8 meters in width, and then cutting the cut part and landscaping are planned to be restored and restored, and that it is not likely to damage the natural landscape.

It is insufficient to recognize that even if the damaged part of the ground cutting of the mountainous district of this case was restored by the cutting of the mountainous district of this case, it is not likely to damage the natural landscape. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since there is no other evidence to recognize it.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the standard of the superior pipes to be installed on the land of this case is [900 meters on the side section 900 meters x 900 meters m, 800 meters on the PE pipe], so it is sufficient to take measures for smooth drainage of superior pipes.

In order to establish an excellent pipe on the land of this case [900 meters on the side x 900 meters on the side x 800 meters on the PE pipe].

Even if there is no evidence to prove that it is sufficient to take measures for smooth drainage of good quality, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff, which was owned by the Plaintiff, is 230-1 square meters as a ditch 936 square meters.