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. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned 55 square meters of a lighting structure housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the ground of 420 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Daegu North-gu, Daegu-gu, which is a development-restricted zone.

B. As the instant housing was demolished due to the implementation of public works (D Construction), the Plaintiff received compensation for losses from the Defendant, a project operator, on March 8, 2017.

C. On February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit to build a detached house with a total floor area of 230.04 square meters on the land of Daegu Northern-gu, Seoul, which is a development restriction zone, by asserting that the instant housing will be removed by the implementation of public works.

On March 16, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission for construction to the effect that the construction of the instant house is not permitted under Article 12(1)1(e) of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Act No. 15990, Dec. 18, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] 5(c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2931, Dec. 4, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] 5(c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E) The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said administrative appeal was dismissed on April 30, 2018. The Plaintiff’s ground for recognition was without dispute, as to the fact that there was no ground for recognition, as indicated in subparagraphs A, 1, 3, 3 and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1. The instant housing is for the following reasons.