1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,960,00 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from October 24, 2017 to September 4, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a general restaurant business report on the B1st floor B (hereinafter “instant building”) in Ansan-si, and the Defendant accepted the report on the general restaurant business on February 15, 2017.

The instant building was entered in the general building ledger as C was changed from the second neighborhood living facilities (office) on February 6, 2017 to the second-class neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants).

B. On February 8, 2017, between D and D, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between March 2, 2017 to March 1, 2019, the lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000, and the rent of KRW 2,70,000,00 with respect to the instant building, and operated a restaurant business in the instant building.

C. On August 8, 2017, the instant building was changed from Class II neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) to Class II neighborhood living facilities (offices). On September 21, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant building was confirmed as an area where general restaurants cannot be conducted, and that the purpose of use of the building was returned to the original state. As such, the instant building was notified on October 11, 2017.

On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff closed the restaurant business in the instant building.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 6, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not confirm the pertinent laws and regulations and accepted the Plaintiff’s report of general restaurant, and accordingly, the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages that incurred KRW 88,616,950 in terms of lease deposit, human park expenses, etc. to operate a restaurant in the instant building.

3. Determination

A. The fact that the building of this case is an area where general restaurants cannot be performed pursuant to the provisions of Article 32 of the Farmland Act, etc. is a public official in charge of the defendant in charge of the defendant's disposition of this case, but he could have known that it would have been done with due care, acceptance of the plaintiff's application of this case.