1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The judgment of the first instance court is dismissed.

subsection (2) of subsection (2) of this section shall be as follows:

The plaintiffs of land No. 5 per annum (2 years) asserts that the part concerning the above land in the disposition of this case is invalid as it is against a person who is not subject to the disposition, since the land No. 5 is no land owned and used by the plaintiffs.

However, considering the following circumstances as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs constituted “owner, manager, or occupant of a structure and land used for the offense,” as stipulated in Article 30(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act, in view of the evidence, Z, Z, Y’s testimony, Y’s video products, Y’s video products, Y’s evidence No. 5, and 13’s video products, and the overall purport of the pleadings. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there

(1) Article 12 (1) of the Development Restriction Zones Act limits installation of a structure, alteration of the form and quality of land, etc. within a development restriction zone without permission, and Articles 30 (1) and 30-2 (1) of the same Act stipulate that corrective orders and imposition of charges for compelling compliance may be made to a person who commits such violation, and a person subject to such disposition includes the owner, manager, or occupant of a structure

② On October 2010, Plaintiff B packaged 5 land a year, which is farmland in a development-restricted zone, to use as a vehicle traffic, and then constitutes an act prohibited in principle as “construction of a structure and alteration to the form and quality of land” under Article 12(1) of the Development-restricted Zone Act, and the Plaintiffs form and quality of the said land.