1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition of a part of the judgment of the first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(hereinafter the meaning of the medicinal language used in this subparagraph is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. 2. the second part of the second part used or added "the defendant's "the defendant" in the second part of the second part of the second part of the second part shall be "Yyang-si", the "the defendant's "the defendant" in the 7th and the 12th part of the 15th part shall be "Yyang-si", the "the defendant" in the 16th part "12.10.10", the "the defendant" in the 18th part of the 20-21th part of the 20-21 part "the defendant" shall be added to "the defendant (in accordance with the Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs in Yangyang-si, delegated the affairs such as corrective order, imposition of a non-performance penalty, etc. in the development restriction zone)".

The "public official in charge of the defendant" in Part 7 and "public official in charge of the defendant" in Part 8 shall be appointed from all "public official in charge of the Namyang-si" and the following shall be added after the "public official in charge of the defendant" in Part 17:

On April 4, 2018, a public official in charge of the Defendant’s side submitted a business trip report (Evidence B No. 19) in 2018, which was consistent with the fact that the Plaintiff conducted a field investigation on the instant land on April 5, 201 in the course of a trial, and that “the cutting of 2.5 meters in height, 60 meters in length, and 0.5 meters in width,” but inasmuch as the gradient and status before November 201 of the instant land is unclear, even according to the field photograph (including a photograph measuring the site as a rope) attached to the said report, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff still cut the said content.” The evidence No. 17 of the first 4th 18 of the “No. 18 of the “No. 18”, and the last e., “existence” of the instant land shall be deemed as “existence and scope.”