1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The court's explanation about this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part concerning which appeal is made under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The judgment of the court of first instance, which rejected the defendant's assertion, even if the evidence submitted by the court of first instance is re-examineed with the defendant's assertion, and the disposition of this case is unlawful, is just in the judgment of the court of first instance which received the plaintiff's claim to revoke it). On the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones" was amended as "Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29331, Dec. 4, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply)," and the "Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones" as "Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2931, Dec. 4, 2018)" was amended as "Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones."

On the 3rd page of the first instance judgment, the building of this case shall be built by cutting "the building subject to confinement" into "the building subject to confinement".

Article 12 (1) 1 (e) of the Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 13 (1) and [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act because "in accordance with the above provisions" cannot be excluded from the application of the Development Restriction Zone Act, in cases of the fourth 15th mar of the judgment of the first instance.

5. D.

C) Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the court of first instance was made. On the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the grounds for the alteration (the partial cancellation of a development restriction zone) stated in the king Urban Management Plan modified on March 9, 2016 shall be the project operator of this case D.