1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In light of the following circumstances, based on the legal principles as seen above, the extension of the restaurant of this case sought by the Plaintiff, based on the evidence and the overall purport of the arguments, including the evidence as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 15 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, shall be determined as likely to affect the topographical change in the hinterland B and the surrounding landscape of cultural properties as stated in the grounds for the disposition. It is difficult to say that the disposition of this case, which the Defendant refused to grant a permit to extend the restaurant of this case, violated the principle of proportionality or the principle of equity, and there is no other evidence to support that the disposition of this case was abused or abused by the Defendant’s discretionary power.

2. As such, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.