1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court shall explain concerning this case are stated in the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition as provided in paragraph (2).

Therefore, based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is quoted.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. At the end of the 5th sentence of the first instance judgment, the phrase “in addition, if a postal item is sent by means of registration, it can be presumed that the postal item was delivered to the addressee at that time, unless there is any counter-proof of special circumstances, such as the fact that it was lost or returned during the process of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du60577, Mar. 9, 2017).”

(b) add “A No. 19-1 and 26” in front of “B No. 23 and 26” of the fifth 3th eth of the judgment of the first instance, and add “A-1 and 19-1” to “A-1 restaurant operated by the Plaintiff” of the same eight eths to “cafeteria operated by the Plaintiff and the address of the Plaintiff.”

C. At the end of the seventh 17th 17th am of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff’s assertion is still without merit, as it is difficult to deem such defect as a serious defect to make the first and second dispositions of this case null and void in light of the following circumstances, even if there was a defect in granting the power of representation to D as asserted by the Plaintiff in the hearing procedure of this case.

The 8th 11th 15th 15th 15th 2th 15th 2th 2015 of the judgment of the first instance court “the Plaintiff appears to have used the instant land as a parking lot or a garden operated by the Plaintiff for a restaurant for the period of time (from January 29, 2015 to August 1, 2016) stipulated in the dispositions Nos. 1 and 2 of this case. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff used the instant land for the purpose of acquiring the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.”