1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall include the part resulting from the participation.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment in addition to the addition of the following Paragraph (2) as to the matters claimed by the plaintiff (appointed party) in the trial, and therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. On February 28, 2017, the Defendant added Article 133(1)21 subparag. 5 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act to the ground for the instant disposition through a preparatory document as of February 28, 2017. As long as the deceased obtained the instant development permit, it cannot be deemed that the above ground for subparagraph 5 is not the same. In addition, the ground for “the deceased obtained the instant development permit on January 31, 201,” and that “the deceased was engaged in development activities without obtaining the said development permit from the beginning,” it is apparent that the aforementioned ground for disposition by the Defendant is not identical to the basic facts. As such, the development activities subject to the instant development permit, which were the subject of the instant development permit, are an act of expanding the maximum of 2 meters to the retaining wall installed through the minor action notification to the deceased on December 13, 2006, which is a minor development permit under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and thus, it cannot be seen as an act of installing the instant national land plan for the purpose of building plan.