1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The reasoning of this court's ruling of the first instance court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the first instance court, except for the parts to be determined additionally in the following paragraphs, and thus, (b) Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

13 pages 13 "The plaintiff is a resident at the time of designation of a development restriction zone" shall be raised as follows:

【The following shall be added to the Plaintiff’s business site located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D from the time the Plaintiff was designated as a development restriction zone and operating a liquefied petroleum gas filling station for motor vehicles in the Plaintiff’s business site in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City H:

【Disposition of Non-permission on September 4, 2014” in the 14th 2th 14th 14th 14th 【The Disposition of this case’ is the “Disposition of this case’s Disposition,” where the location of the project site was not significantly changed since the land B adjacent to the east of the Incheon Yeonsu-gu I land and the J land was included in the project site except for the land B, which was adjacent to the east of the J land.

The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s additional determination was made without examining the necessity of installing two charging stations, and the instant disposition was made only after the application without any grounds, even though the Defendant decided to grant permission to anyone in consideration of the traffic volume of the relevant road and the convenience in the use of the relevant facilities in accordance with the purport of the relevant provision. As such, the Defendant abused and abused discretion.

Judgment

In addition to the above circumstances, as recognized by the evidence as seen earlier, the defendant did not need to install two charging stations within the development restriction zone in light of the size of the development restriction zone in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, and road conditions (Evidence No. 1, 10, 17, etc.).