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, citing the instant case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the matters which are used by the court of first instance or emphasized or additionally claimed by the plaintiff at the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

(Other matters alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if all of the evidence submitted in the first instance and the first instance trial were examined, the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable). [In the second instance judgment, the part written after dismissal] of the second instance judgment, i.e., “No. 3, 2018” as “No. 26, 2018.”

Article 13(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29395, Dec. 18, 2018) provides that “The term “Article 13(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29395, Dec. 18, 2018)” shall be deemed “the

In the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment’s 4th 1st 2th 4th 2th 1st 1st 2th 2th 1st 2th 1st 3th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 202

The attached Form of the judgment of the first instance shall be replaced by the attached Form of this judgment.

【Supplementary Decision】

A. (1) Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion is in violation of the principle of equality (i) The Defendant permitted J’s tourist accommodation business for the eightth floor of the ground located in the natural green area, and allowed the Plaintiff’s tourist hotel business plan to be constructed in a manner that does not affect the residential environment in the case of I close to the residential densely located area than the instant building, while the Plaintiff’s tourist hotel business plan was not approved. This is a discrimination without reasonable grounds, which goes beyond the scope of discretion, and is unlawful. (ii) The judgment of the Plaintiff’s discretionary administrative disposition goes beyond the bounds of