2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff

On February 10, 2017, A filed an application for permission for construction, including permission for mountainous district conversion, with a view to constructing four animal and plant-related facilities of the total floor area of 15,267 square meters [13,140 square meters in forest land, 2,127 square meters in electric field] and 5,643.19 square meters in total floor area (5,654.89 square meters in building area) on the ground (hereinafter “instant land”) on the land of 15,267 square meters in land (including 13,140 square meters in forest land, 2,127 square meters in electric field) on the ground of the land for which the first application is filed for the instant land.

(B) The Plaintiff filed an application for construction permission, including permission for mountainous district conversion, to construct three animal and plant-related facilities of 6,612 square meters in the site area and total floor area (the same as the building area) 2,700 square meters on the ground on the land in Tae-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “the second application site”) on the same day (hereinafter “the second application site”). The Plaintiff filed an application for construction permission including permission for mountainous district conversion, etc.

(hereinafter “Application No. 2”. The Defendant received an opinion from the relevant department on the non-consultation regarding permission for mountainous district conversion and received the same on May 10, 2017 from the relevant department, and thus, on the grounds delineated below, the Defendant rendered the first disposition of this case not to grant permission to the Plaintiff A.

B. The instant Disposition No. 2, which rejected the application for the second of this case against the Plaintiff B, was “the instant Disposition No. 2,” and the “each of the instant Disposition No. 1” is “each of the instant dispositions.”

AB made it.

The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but they were dismissed on September 4, 2017 and September 18, 2017.

The plaintiff's ground for non-consultation on the permission of mountainous district conversion is required to supplement the damage prevention plan, but there is no damage prevention plan, and the plan to cut the forest land in the first application area and remove approximately 36,653 cubic meters of the forest land in this case is in violation of the basic principles of mountainous district management under Article 3 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act that the project plan should be managed in a way that improves the public interest of the inappropriate forest due to excessive damage to the forest, and Article 18 (1) and (2) of the Mountainous