1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Each “this Court” in heading 7 and 17 of the amended part shall be replaced by each “court of First Instance”.

Part 5, "No. 23" of the 16th class is replaced by "No. 23,24".

On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff complained against the charge of violating the Building Act, and was charged with summary order of KRW 3 million on August 7, 2014, and was replaced by the summary order of KRW 13 million at around that time.

Class 1 "Class 1" in Chapter 6, 16, 17, and 7 shall be raised to "Class 2".

On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Daejeon Preliminary Police Station on the charge of violating the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff was replaced by the Daejeon District Court’s summary indictment on the charge of violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

제6면 제20행 다음에 “⑨ 원고는 위 시정명령에 대하여 대전광역시 행정심판위원회에 위 시정명령의 취소를 구하였고, 대전광역시 행정심판위원회는 2016. 3. 28. 위 시정명령에 사전통지 및 의견제출 절차를 위반한 위법이 있다는 이유로 이를 취소하는 재결을 하였으며, 피고는 위 재결의 취지에 따라 사전통지 및 의견제출 절차를 거쳐 2016. 5. 23. 원고에게 다시 같은 취지의 시정명령을 하였다.”를 추가한다.

On the other hand, the 8th page 7 of the 7th page "as to the instant columns, the Plaintiff was notified of a summary order of KRW 3 million due to the suspicion of violating the Building Act on August 7, 2014, and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time. As to the instant put in place, the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is also relevant to put in place and put in place.