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: (a) excluding the following dismissal from the 7th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance from the 8th to the 7th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby admitting the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Meanwhile, in light of the Defendant’s attitude that the Plaintiff did not impose any specific sanctions on nonperformance of the obligation to report the change of the size of the restaurant in this case for a considerable period of time, and lent the site, there is room for the Defendant to believe that the Defendant was not aware of the nonperformance of the obligation to report the change in the size of the restaurant in this case.

However, in light of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleading as a whole, the Plaintiff appears to have been operating the restaurant in an unlawful state without reporting the change in the area of the business site, by using the circumstance where the Defendant was aware that it was not allowed to operate the restaurant at will, by arbitrarily expanding the restaurant, by using the circumstance where the Defendant was aware that it was not allowed, and thus, it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff’

Ultimately, we cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

① In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s husband E entered into a military property loan agreement with the Defendant on the instant restaurant site, while indicating the purpose of use of the leased property as “resident” rather than the place of business, and the Plaintiff used the said land as part of the instant restaurant site based on the said loan agreement, it seems that the Plaintiff was aware that it is not allowed to operate the instant restaurant by arbitrarily extending the restaurant, and that it is not possible to enter into a military property loan agreement for the purpose of expanding the restaurant.

② The Plaintiff