The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City’s 3,491 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) and a single-story housing and 85.36 square meters in storage, and 16.96 square meters in storage (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. At the time of June 13, 1974, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit to reconstruct the existing house into the instant house on the ground of the instant application site (at the time, the address was referred to as the “Game Kimpo-gun C”), which was located in the development restriction zone from the head of Kimpo-gun, the competent authority, as of June 13, 1974 (However, the area of the instant house under the building permit at the time is 72.71mm2), and around that time, completed the completion inspection on August 5,

C. At present, in the building register of the instant housing, the total floor area, the building area, and the area for calculating the volume ratio shall be “102.32 square meters,” respectively, and each relevant column of the site area, the floor area, the building volume ratio, and the building-to-land ratio shall be a column.

On June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for correction of the indication of the building ledger to the effect that “3,491 square meters” was written in the column of the site size in the building ledger of the instant housing, and “2.93%” was written in the building ledger column and the building-to-land ratio column, and the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application on June 21, 2019 on the ground that “as there is no provision allowing alteration of form and quality in the relevant development restriction zone as at the time of permitting the construction permission of the instant housing, the entire site of the instant application cannot

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(i) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, and evidence 6], and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s certificate of completion on August 5, 1974 regarding the instant housing indicated as “3,419.475 square meters” and “2.12%,” and the Plaintiff’s certificate of completion inspection is deemed as the site area “3,419.475 square meters” and “2.12%,” and the building ledger of the instant housing was omitted or originally stated in each corresponding column.