The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Where the use of a building belonging to an “educational and medical facility group” is changed to the purpose of a building falling under “residential and business facility group”, Article 14 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005) and Article 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19466 of May 8, 2006), if there is a request for change of the entries in the building ledger, it is sufficient to file a report on change of the use of the building ledger (hereinafter “former Building Act”), but the amendment of the contents thereof, and Article 14 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005; Act No. 8974 of Mar. 21, 2008); Article 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19468 of May 8, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 19650, Aug. 19, 2009).

(hereinafter “Revised Building Act”). (b)

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below and the evidence duly admitted, the building of this case was constructed on the land designated as a "general social welfare center" according to the Class I district unit planning of the Sung-nam branch at the time of the plaintiff's acquisition, and its main purpose is "education, research and welfare facilities", and the detailed use of the third and fourth floor became a visually handicapped medical care center. However, the building of this case was constructed on the land designated as a "general