1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the modification of part of the reasons for the written judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Part of the Judgment of the first instance court is in accordance with the following letter boxes from 5 pages 4 to 7 pages 4.

C) Specific determination (1) each description or image (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) of Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, 6 through 10.

In addition to the overall arguments, the following circumstances, namely, the instant land was designated as a natural green area and a neighboring park under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and was designated as a development restriction zone under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones on August 25, 1972. The instant land appears to have been “forest” around 1987, and was used as “road” around 1991. Since around 2015, the expropriation adjudication was also used as farmland or flower plastic houses. Since the land appraisal corporation was also assessed as “previous” or “land land.” However, considering that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, obtained permission from the competent authority or filed a report with respect to the alteration of the form and quality of the instant land in light of the fact that there was no fact that there was no permission or report with respect to the alteration of the form and quality of the instant land from June 27, 1961, the Plaintiff constitutes a change in the form and quality of the instant land under the former Forestry Act or a change in the form and quality of the instant land from 201 to the form and quality.