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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the first instance as follows, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion in violation of the principle of proportionality or the principle of equality, etc. in light of the following: (a) the instant application does not seem to be land from the instant cultural heritage material; and (b) the size of the Plaintiff’s building to be constructed is a small scale and does not require additional cutting or cutting, etc.; and (c) the Plaintiff’s additional disposition is not necessary.

① However, Article 26-2(1)2(a) of the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Gyeongbuk-do, which was established according to the delegation of Article 13(1) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, provides that “The scope of the preservation area of a historic and cultural environment shall be 300 meters from the outer boundary of the cultural heritage,” among urban areas under Article 36(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, “a green belt, control area, agricultural and fishery area, and natural environment conservation area,” and “from the outer boundary of the cultural heritage, 300 meters,” and ② the cultural heritage resource of this case is designated and publicly announced as E-designated cultural heritage resource of Gyeongbuk-do, and the filing of the instant application does not exceed 150 meters in straight line from this point. In light of the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff or the written and image of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant disposition

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is groundless.