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 judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part added or added below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added at least 5 pages 6 of the judgment of the first instance:

E) Inasmuch as alteration of the current state of C, etc. is merely an act that may affect the preservation of State-designated cultural heritage, rather than changing the current state of a protected zone, Article 35(1)2 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act should be applied, rather than Article 21-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Moreover, the alteration of the current state of C, etc. does not fall under any of the following acts in the preservation area of historical and cultural environment, and there was no obligation to obtain permission for alteration of the current state. Nevertheless, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise by applying Article 35(1)1 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and Article 21-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is unlawful. The following is added to the judgment of the first instance, 5.11 of the first instance court, and the lower judgment stated that the Defendant’s new request for permission for alteration of the current state was invalid even if there is no need to obtain a new warning to the owner’s new question as to the permit for alteration of the current state.