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. As to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

Under the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, the term "Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as "Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones")" is "former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Act No. 6379, Apr. 23, 2019; hereinafter referred to as "Act")".

The 6th sentence of the first instance judgment, the 10th to 7th sentence, and the 16th sentence are as follows.

1) The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion filed the instant application before the abolishment of the instant disposition, which intended to abolish the plan for the placement of gas stations within a development restriction zone, and pursuant to Article 5 of the Addenda of the Development Restriction Zone Act (amended by March 21, 2008) and Article 4 of the Addenda of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20090, Feb. 6, 2009) (hereinafter referred to as “the Addenda of the Plaintiff’s assertion”), the instant disposition ought to be governed by the former notification of the modification of the plan for the placement of gas stations within a development restriction zone.

The abolition notice of this case did not provide a transitional provision for a person who applied for registration of gas stations with the transitional provision regarding gas stations already installed. This is against the supplementary provision of the Plaintiff’s assertion, which goes against the principle of higher law priority.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the closure notification of this case is unlawful.

2) Determination A) The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s arrangement plan formulated by the head of a Si/Gun/Gu regarding permission for acts under the Development Restriction Zone Act (in this case, attached Table 1] under Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] 5(e)(10) of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act. The instant application is filed on April 12, 2019.