1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

The April 11th of the judgment of the first instance is "Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Act No. 16482, Aug. 20, 2019; hereinafter "Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones")".

The proviso of Article 12 (1) shall be construed as "proviso of Article 12 (1)," the proviso of 12-13 of the first instance judgment as "proviso of the same Article," and the proviso of 16 of the first instance judgment as "proviso of Article 12 (1)."

The "Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones") shall be regarded as the "Act on Development Restriction Zones".

Each of the "provisos 4 through 5 of Article 12" shall be deemed to be "Article 12 (1) 1 (e) or 4" under the 8th sentence of the first instance judgment.

The court of first instance shall order the following up to 3 parallels 2 to 10 parallels 9:

On the other hand, while the instant mountainous district was changing the form and quality of land that was altered before the designation of a development restriction zone, there exists an essential difference in applying the instant guidelines to the instant mountainous district after the designation of a development restriction zone. As such, it shall not be deemed that the instant mountainous district was in violation of the principle of equality on the grounds that the report of an illegal exclusive mountainous district was accepted with respect to the instant mountainous district and the report of an illegal exclusive mountainous district was not accepted with respect to the instant mountainous district,” the “Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones” in 2 following the 12th instance judgment of the first instance court, “former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Act No. 16482, Aug. 20, 2

2. Conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is the same.