1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On June 8, 2017, the Defendant applied for the alteration of the use of the building against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as follows: ① “(1) of the judgment of the first instance,” “(2) No. 13 (“Prohibition of Change of the Use and Deliberation Conditions of the Urban Planning Committee”)”, “No. 14, 15(15(hereinafter “instant building report”), and “No. 11, 12(2) of the third and 16(2) of the instant building report” are deleted, and ② of “No. 16(2) of the second and 17(2) of the instant building report,” and “No. 17(3) of the third and 17(2) of the animal funeral hall “No. 36.52mm2 of the animal funeral hall of this case” (hereinafter “the animal funeral facility of this case”) are added. As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance (the second through 4’s Schedule No. 2 of the second to 4) are cited).2 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion can provide comprehensive services related to companion animals through the animal funeral facility of this case, even if the purpose of use is altered, it does not violate the unity of permission for development activities, and even if the animal funeral facility of this case is installed and operated, water quality is not likely to be contaminated, and traffic flow is not likely to be impeded, and the registration of animal funeral business is not impossible on the ground that negative recognition of animal funeral facility does not lead to damage to the image of the village, and that there is a civil petition filed by residents. Since the Plaintiff cannot use the building of this case as animal funeral facility of this case in accordance with the existing purpose, it is serious that the infringement of property rights due to the disposition of this case is serious, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful because it deviates from and abused discretionary power by misleading facts and violating the principle of proportionality.

B. The entry in the relevant statutes (attached Form 1) is as follows.

C. The facts of recognition are shown in the foregoing.