1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the parties' claims are examined in addition to the evidences submitted to the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second parallel "the defendant" in the second parallel 7 shall be raised to "Syang-gun".

“Participation in the second part” of the 12th sentence shall be added to the following “At the end of August 29, 2016.”

Part 2 of the 15th sentence "by August 2, 2016" shall be applied to "by August 1, 2016".

Part 3 5-6 of the 3rd 5-6 [Reasons for Recognition] shall add “B 10” to the column.

Part 8 (10) of the 8th page "this Court" shall be incorporated into "court of the first instance".

The 10th page 7-9 " shall apply in the light of others, etc." shall be followed as follows:

In light of the fact that “and the Plaintiff’s act of unauthorized removal from the above site is difficult to be considered as intentional or gross negligence, and these circumstances are sufficiently considered in rendering the instant disposition, in view of the fact that it appears that there is no particular problem with women to seek materials for other cultural heritage construction works during the period in which the instant construction cannot be actually carried out due to the circumstances of Dr. Dr., the Plaintiff’s act of unauthorized removal from the site is difficult to be considered as intentional or gross negligence.”

The plaintiff's act of evading the plaintiff's on-site without permission is relatively minor.

In addition, in addition to the instant construction site, the Plaintiff appears to have not left the site without obtaining the consent of the project owner, and the instant construction is deemed to have not been done.