2...

A. On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of the aggregate extraction business, the business of manufacturing and selling aggregate, and on August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff registered the aggregate extraction business with the former Mayor.

B. On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on July 12, 2016 that he/she would screen and scrap aggregate as follows (hereinafter “instant report”).

The area for installation: Types of facilities installed with 16,740 square meters per day: The production volume of 500 cubic meters per day: The production period from July 201 to June 30, 2019: The production period from July 2016 to June 30, 2019: From June 30, 2019

C. On September 1, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the acceptance of the instant report is impossible due to the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2.I notify that the cases of filing a report on the selection and crushing of aggregate ships in C, D, and E with a thickness of cargo shall not be repaired as follows:

Reasons for not accepting a report on the crushing of aggregate;

(a) The fact that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 10, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, 【A', which is the ground for recognition', 【A', No. 4, and all of the pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The party's assertion 1) In a lawsuit claiming revocation of an administrative disposition, etc. that contests the illegality and illegality of the grounds for the administrative disposition, it is improper to newly claim circumstances other than those that are the grounds for the administrative disposition at the time of the administrative disposition. Therefore, in the instant case, the propriety of the grounds for the disposition, which is the neighboring resident, should

B. Since the report of this case satisfies all the legal requirements necessary for its acceptance, the defendant shall accept it.

In addition, there is no probability that the plaintiff's aggregate crushing project may cause damage to residents, and the plaintiff fully furnished all preventive measures.

Nevertheless, only “resident objection” is the same.