A. On December 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval to establish a factory in order to newly build an automobile parts manufacturing factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) of a size of 13,908 square meters on the ground of 29,900 square meters on the 29,906 square meters of ebbbage 2-1 forest land in the ebbbn city in the ebbial administration (e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., 13,823 square meters on the land before subdivision, and the Defendant

B. The land prior to the said subdivision was divided into 122-11 forest 29,90 square meters, 122-12 forest 13,823 square meters and 122-13 forest 4,137 square meters and registration conversion in the field of e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail.

C. On December 8, 2004, the Plaintiff applied for approval to change a factory establishment with the purport of establishing the instant factory by reducing the building area from 13,908 square meters to 10,971.13 square meters on the ground of 122-11 forest land in the same Ri, 2004. On March 8, 2005, the Defendant installed a road on the 122-12 forest land and 13,823 square meters in the same Ri as the previous conditions, and applied for approval to change a factory establishment on the condition of donation.

Around September 15, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for completion of permission for the development of the above factory site. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to construct and contribute a road in accordance with the existing conditions, but the Plaintiff did not comply with such request. As the Plaintiff did not comply with the existing conditions on January 18, 2007, the Plaintiff’s application for completion of permission for development was rejected.

E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the above return disposition. The appellate court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim and revoked the return of the above report of development permit (Seoul High Court 2007Nu28559). However, the Supreme Court, which was the final appeal, did not examine whether there was a ground for the invalidation of the existing condition attached at the time of the first approval of factory construction.