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 by the plaintiff at the court of first instance is not significantly different from that of the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted at the court of first instance is re-examined, the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the plaintiff'

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

C. The second-class 3 to 21 of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

A. On June 9, 1965, a detached house of the size of 1st floor on the ground and the total floor area of 59.24m2 (hereinafter “instant house”) was constructed on the land of the old Gyeonggi-gun, Namyang-gun, and the said forest was thereafter designated as a development restriction zone.

The Plaintiff acquired the forest land as above in 196, and among the forest land, the part where the instant housing is located was changed to the administrative district on May 6, 2002, and the part where the instant housing was located, which became B large-717 square meters in Nam-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. D, with the Plaintiff’s permission, removed the instant housing after obtaining a building permit from the Defendant on November 18, 2007 to set up the Class II neighborhood living facilities on the instant land, and was cancelled on July 30, 2008, but the construction was not actually performed.

C. On February 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the Defendant to newly construct a detached house on the instant land. On March 28, 2018, the Defendant, on the instant land, which was “the Plaintiff on March 28, 2018,” is designated as a land within a development restriction zone, the land category of which is “building site” from the time of designation of a development restriction zone pursuant to Article 13(1) [Attachment Table 1] subparagraph 5(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones