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 concerning this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the plaintiff's assertion, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. The Plaintiff’s additional determination is based on the detailed statement of regular taxation on land in 2017 (Evidence 5-1 of the Evidence A), and the detailed statement of regular taxation on housing in July 2017 (Evidence 5-2 of the Evidence A), which was submitted to this court, and the land in this case (T of Daegu Suwon-gu) is classified as “large-scale” and its land category was classified as “large-scale” from the time of the designation of a development restriction zone, and thus, Article 12(1)1(e) of the Act on the Development Restriction Zones

Title, Article 13(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act

5.(c)

A) Accordingly, even though the instant building may be newly constructed, the instant disposition that the Defendant ordered the removal of the instant building was unlawful. However, according to the Plaintiff’s written statement of regular taxation (No. 5-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 5-2), the land category and current status on the public register of the instant land are all “former” (the land category on the public register of the Daegu Suwon-gu E, other than the instant land) and the current status are merely written as the site.

The object of taxation of the property tax on housing imposed on the Plaintiff is not the building on the land of this case, but only the fact that it is the building on the land of this case.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land was classified as “building site” from the time of designation of a development restriction zone, and even if there was an existing house on the instant land from the time of designation of a development restriction zone, in order to construct a building on the instant land within a development restriction zone, a building permit should be obtained in advance pursuant to the proviso of Article 12 of the

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff is in the instant land.