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 the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the second and third floors of the judgment of the court of first instance (the second and third floors of the building) are used as “one floor of the building”; and (b) the second and second floors are the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion that the defendant emphasizes again in the trial, and thus, the same shall be cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Defendant asserts that, although there are about 10 amusement taverns around the instant building, most of them are permitted from 2010 to 2013, the early stage of the creation of a new city C, the population of the new city in 2010 was about 23,00 persons, but there were about 70,00 persons as of July 2015 due to the rapid increase of the population, and accordingly, there was a significant change in the residential environment, educational environment, etc. as of July 2015, even if there was a previous case permitted as a amusement facility in the past, it is justifiable to refuse the Plaintiff’s application for change of use due to the changed surrounding circumstances.

However, as the lower court properly pointed out, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for change of the use of the instant building as amusement facilities by July 11, 2014, even though the Defendant permitted the change of use as to the building adjacent to the instant building by 10 days thereafter, it is difficult to deem that the surrounding conditions have changed rapidly between the time when the change of use was finally permitted and the time when the Plaintiff applied for change of use was requested, and further, as the Defendant also recognized, a new city is planned to accommodate 80,00 population from the beginning. As such, the continuous increase of population and the change in the residential and educational environment, etc. accordingly, are merely a matter that the Defendant could have predicted, as a matter of course, and therefore, the Defendant predicted or advance such change.