1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Determination of abuse of discretionary power is subject to determination of mistake of facts and violation of the principle of proportionality, etc., and the person disputing the validity of such administrative action bears the burden of proof in respect of abuse of discretionary power.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Du41579 Decided October 27, 2016, etc.) The instant land located within a development restriction zone is classified as forest and forest continuously without changing the land category from around 1953 to the present, and the specific use area constitutes a natural green area stipulated in the National Land Planning Act.

B) There is no tree planted in the instant application site, and approximately KRW 5-7 trees are growing on the instant land. In particular, the Plaintiff applied for a new construction permit of a agricultural product storage warehouse at the site adjacent to the instant application site (attached Form 1 drawings 2) at the same time as the instant application is filed, as indicated in the attached Form 1, along with the application of the instant land. The instant adjacent application site is located in the place of the instant adjacent application, for several hundred and seventy years in the indication “*” as indicated in the attached Form 2.

c) the application in this case is adjacent to G in the Hanam City.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the aforementioned legal principles, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, 9 (including the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the overall purport of the pleading, the health department and the aforementioned facts acknowledged the whole purport of the pleading in light of the following circumstances, the plaintiff's assertion that there is no ground for disposition of this case on the ground of conservation of forest and field is rejected.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the building of this case is a multi-family house and a subsequent parking lot is installed, and even if the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration's permission for the alteration of the current state is a matter to be supplemented separately from the permission of the application of this case, the defendant's discretion on the