1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Suwon-si, Suwon-si B 199 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the single-story of reinforced concrete groups and one-story of reinforced concrete groups, and the said land and its neighboring areas were designated respectively as water source protection areas on June 10, 1971, and as environmental improvement zones on April 16, 201.

B. The Plaintiff applied for permission to change the use of the above detached house to the Defendant. However, the Defendant applied for permission to change the use of the general restaurant within the environment improvement zone only to the original residents at the time of designation of the water source protection area, and the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s application on November 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 8, Eul Nos. 1 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful in the instant disposition, even though the Plaintiff fell under the original resident at the time of designation as the water source protection area on June 10, 1971, since the Plaintiff purchased 1,124 square meters adjacent to the instant land and newly built 1,124 square meters on the said land, and actually resided in the said housing from that time.

(b) Attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. Examining the determination, comprehensively taking account of Article 7(1) and (4)1 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, Article 13(1)2 and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25785, Nov. 28, 2014); Article 2 subparag. 4(a) and Article 15 subparag. 2(d) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Management Rules, a person who is able to change the use of an existing factory house into a resting restaurant or general restaurant within a water-source protection area designated as an environment improvement zone is limited to a “resident” who has resided in the area before the designation of a water-source protection area. In this case, the Plaintiff is designated as