The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the instant case, is as follows, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this case, such assertion is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the time of the construction act of 11 of the second page 2, “The area with a good natural landscape” was added to “2 of the second page 13,” and “The 6th page 3 through 5 of the 13th page 13 attached, “The 8th page 8-2 of the 8th page 2,” and “The Plaintiff asserted that the construction regulation was denied on the land of this case, since the construction permission or construction permission of the 6th page 3 through 5 added “the 8th page 2 of the 2nd page 13 attached to “the construction act of this case” was conducted as follows, and compared to the land of this case, the land of this case, the necessity of the construction regulation was greater, the land of this city, the F, the restaurant, the rest, and the land use status of this case, or the natural environment (defluence) compared to the land of this case.

However, the pertinent land and its surrounding areas, the time when the construction act was performed, whether the construction plan needs to be deliberated pursuant to the applicable statutes, the purpose of the building, the construction situation, etc. in Jeju City is different, and thus, it is not directly compared to the instant land or there is a reasonable ground to dispose of it differently. Thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to violate the principle of equality.

The Plaintiff added the following contents between the acts No. 5 and No. 6 of the 6th page 6, and added the following contents. The instant land is not the “Preservation Management Area” under Article 36(1)2(a) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).