1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to change the form and quality of land on April 3, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of land B, C, D, and above D’s land (hereinafter “instant housing”); each of the above land is designated as a landscape green belt under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”); and a landscape green belt under the Act on Urban Parks and Greenbelts, Etc. (hereinafter “Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones”).

B. On March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for change of the form and quality of land of 192 square meters among the land, Jung-gu, Sungnam-gu, and C, for the establishment of access roads for access to the instant housing pursuant to Article 12(1) and (2) of the Development Restriction Zone Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application” and the land applied for as “instant land”). C.

On April 3, 2017, the Defendant: (a) as a landscape green belt, the existing access road connected to the instant land is impossible to construct a road to be used as a road under the Building Act pursuant to Article 38 of the Act on Parks and Greenbelts; and (b) pursuant to Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the width of 6 meters should be secured when the length of a dead-end road is at least 35 meters under Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; (c) however, the width of 320 meters from the beginning of the existing status to the said access road is inappropriate as 3.6 to 3.7 meters; and (d) the instant land is within a development-restricted zone, which is under the measures of accusation and corrective measures, and the said application is rejected on the grounds that illegal activities, such as substantial repair and extension without permission, etc., continue to exist in the said D land without permission.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was actually used as a road for more than 40 years, and thereby, a green belt.