1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of permission to engage in development restriction zones (construction) on February 3, 2012, and the disposition of permission to engage in development restriction zones (construction alteration) on May 10, 2012 is revoked, respectively.

3. The supplementary participation costs are borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

(a) The circumstances leading up to the relocation of approval of factory construction by the defendant for a pair of manufacturing industries;

(1) Designation of development restriction zones and overpopulated suppression zones, and existence, etc. of existing brick factories

A) Pursuant to the Urban Planning Act at the time of 1972, the Gyeonggi-do ○○○-gun, Yangju-gun, Gyeonggi-do (referring to the administrative district and name changed; hereinafter the same shall apply) 2,164m2 (number 1 omitted), 3,937m2 (number 2 omitted), 5,127m2 (number 3 omitted), 1,891m2 (number 4 omitted), 2,721m2 (number 5 omitted), 3,50m2 (number 6 omitted), 3,501m2 and 303m2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act”) were designated as a development-restricted area and natural green area. Since then, △△-dong was designated as a development-restricted area and a development-restricted area pursuant to Article 32 subparag. 30, 203 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B) However, around February 1968, the Gyeonggi-do government constructed and registered a brick manufacturing factory of a total size of 2,130.07 square meters (hereinafter “existing brick factory”) on the land of △△-dong (number 3 omitted) and (number 7 omitted) and closed the business. Accordingly, the factory registration was revoked around August 1994. However, there was a building of a total area of 2,063.78 square meters at the time of cancellation, and the registration of the building management ledger was maintained in the development-restricted zone.

(ii) the first return disposition;

A) On January 26, 2004, a pairing industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yingyang industry”) removed the existing brick factory to the Defendant on January 26, 2004, and filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the size of 16,30 square meters [1,754 square meters (number 1 omitted), 2,413 square meters of the site (number 2 omitted), 5,084 square meters of the site (number 3 omitted), 5,084 square meters of the site (number 4 omitted), (number 5 omitted), (number 5 omitted), (number 6 omitted), 96 square meters of the site (number 6 omitted), (number 7 omitted), and (number 1,441 square meters of the site (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), (number 4 omitted), (number 6 omitted), and (number 6 omitted, and (number 1,251 square meters of the previous site).

B) On March 12, 2004, the defendant rejected the above application for approval on the ground that "(i) more than 20 houses within 500 meters in radius are located around the previous site of this case based on Article 5 subparag. 4 of the Notice at Namyang-si, based on Article 203-101 subparag. 4 of the Notice at Southern-si, and (ii) the prior examination of environmental feasibility was not reflected, and (iii) the approval of the management plan of development restriction zones under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as "Development Restriction Zones

(iii) the second return disposition;

A) As the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy’s notification was enforced on September 24, 2004, Article 2004-98 of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy announced as of September 24, 2004, when the notification became effective Article 203-101 of the Namyang-si Notice as of Namyang-si. On December 29, 2004, Tyang-si applied to the Defendant for a new construction of a factory with the above content provisions under Articles 13(1) and 20(2) of the Factory Establishment Act.

B) On March 10, 2005, the defendant presented negative opinions (i) as a result of prior examination of environmental impact with the Han River basin basin environmental office on the ground that the previous application site is located in the vicinity of the Han River protection area and the upper region of the water source protection area, and thus, air pollution and noise due to the construction of a factory is likely to adversely affect the development of a factory, noise due to the leakage of sewage and wastewater due to the malfunction, accident, etc., and (ii) it is necessary to prepare measures such as the inclusion of treatment area into the neighboring water source protection area, and (iii) it is necessary to prepare measures because traffic congestion in the neighboring areas of the previous application site of this case is likely to deepen.

(iv) the third return disposition;

A) Accordingly, on June 13, 2005, the two-service industries filed a request for review of the second return disposition with the Board of Audit and Inspection on the second return disposition, and on June 8, 2006, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted a review on the purport that "the second return disposition shall be cancelled and processed again in consultation with the basin basin environmental office and the preliminary examination of environmental feasibility."

B) Accordingly, on September 5, 2006, the Defendant requested for a supplement of the application for a new construction of a factory under the title of "the request for supplement of the application for a new construction of a factory and the notification of the progress thereof", and the Defendant is not allowed to create a new site for the extension of an existing factory and the installation of ancillary facilities under Article 23 (2) 2 [Attachment Table 3] 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development Restriction of Development Zones (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21139, Nov. 28, 2008). However, the Defendant is not a pre-existing brick factory site, and it is not a pre-existing brick factory site."

C) On October 12, 2006, under Articles 13(1) and 20(2) of the Act on the Establishment of Factory, a pairing industry was designated as a development-restricted area, natural green area, and over-populated area, and 2,854 square meters among the sites (number 3 omitted) of 7,255 square meters in a factory site (7,255 square meters in a building site (number 5 omitted), 2,469 square meters in a building site (number 5 omitted), 2,49 square meters in a building site (number 8 omitted), 97 square meters in a development-restricted area, natural green area, and over-populated area (number 7 omitted), and 2,854 square meters in a building site (hereinafter “instant application site”), and received an application for prior approval from a basin environmental examination and received a notice from the Defendant on the approval of a new construction of a factory of 112 square meters in a manufacturing facility area, 2,845 square meters in a size of 76 square meters.

D) However, on February 2, 2007, the Defendant returned the instant application for approval on the ground that the registration of the factory was cancelled due to the closure of an existing brick plant, and the subject of change of use is nonexistent.

(b) Disposition of approval of factory construction by the defendant on the two-use industry;

1) On April 26, 2007, the two-service industry re-requested to the Board of Audit and Inspection on April 9, 2009, and the Board of Audit and Inspection rendered a review on the purport that “ even if an existing brick factory was closed down and its factory registration was cancelled, it is unlawful to refuse the application for the approval of this case on the ground that it was unlawful to reject the application for the approval of this case on the ground that “the third return disposition should be revoked,” even if it is registered as a factory in the building management ledger of development restriction zones even if the existing brick factory was cancelled due to its closure, and as long as the relevant factory building continues to exist (wholly amended by Act No. 8975, Mar. 21, 2008) under Article 11(1)8 of the former Development Restriction Zone Act (wholly amended by Act No.

2) Accordingly, on July 13, 2009, the Defendant approved the establishment of a two-way manufacturing industry (hereinafter “instant factory”) as follows pursuant to Articles 13(1) and 20(2) of the former Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Factory Establishment Act”). (hereinafter “instant factory establishment approval disposition”).

The total building area (Classification number) of the site area of the factory of the instant site located within the main body and the total building area of 12,675.00 of the building area of the factory of the instant site located within the main body: manufacturing of 2,957.76 Lebacon Manufacturing Business (232): 112.00.7.13 (Land Number 3,5,8,7 omitted): 2,845.76 deemed handling, permission to occupy and use State property, permission to use State property, and permission to divert farmland:

C. Circumstances of each of the dispositions of this case

1) After that, on July 24, 2009, the two-service industry applied for permission of development restriction zones (hereinafter “instant application for permission”) to the Defendant on the basis of the instant disposition of approval of factory construction (hereinafter “instant application”).

2) Meanwhile, on July 30, 2009, after the above application, the Defendant publicly announced △△ Dong-dong, including the instant application site, as an area subject to permission for development activities.

3) On August 27, 2009, the Defendant: “(i) the instant site for application is subject to the restriction on permission for development activities for the purpose of promoting the alteration of an urban management plan (development of the station area), and the permission for activities is restricted according to the said notification; (ii) the contents of the application do not coincide with the contents of the above urban management plan; (iii) restrictions are imposed on permission for activities for public interest, such as minimizing socioeconomic losses and smooth and systematic promotion of projects following the alteration of an urban management plan; and (iv) new construction of a ready-mixed factory and expansion of access roads in accordance with the purpose of designation of a development restriction zone and the legislative intent and law are not sufficient; and (iv) the application for permission for activities (construction) reflects

4) On September 29, 2009, the two-wheeled industries filed a request for review of the disposition of refusal with the Board of Audit and Inspection on the ground that "the notice of restriction on the development activities of the Defendant is subject to Article 13-3 (2) of the Factory Establishment Act, and when the Defendant grants approval for the establishment of a factory, he/she processed the permission to occupy and use a road for the purpose of construction of a factory entry road, permission to use and use State property for consideration and permission to divert farmland for the purpose of construction of a factory entry road, etc., and the total floor area of the factory of this case is less than 2,957 square meters, and the change of form and quality is not accompanied by the change of form and quality as an existing site, and thus, the Board of Audit and Inspection decided to the effect that "the above disposition of refusal should be revoked."

5) In accordance with Article 13 of the Development Restriction Zone Act (amended by Act No. 11054, Sep. 16, 201; hereinafter “former Development Restriction Zone Act”), and Article 11 of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 11182, Jan. 17, 2012; hereinafter “former Building Act”), the Defendant granted permission for development restriction zones for factory extension and reconstruction (hereinafter “instant first disposition”) to the Tyang Industries on February 3, 2012 pursuant to Article 13 of the Development Restriction Zone Act (amended by Act No. 11054, Sept. 16, 2011; hereinafter “former Development Restriction Zone Act”) and Article 11 of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 11182, Jul. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former Building Act”). According to the instant disposition, the two-use industry was planned to construct a total of six buildings with a total floor area of 1,056 square meters and a total of 7.7.75

6) Thereafter, as to the instant factory on April 4, 2012, the two-story industry applied for the alteration of a building permit to convert the total floor area of 1,708.08 square meters into 8 Dong, total floor area of 2,806.61 square meters for five buildings with a total floor area of 1,098.08 square meters and 1,708.53 square meters for the instant factory, and the Defendant applied for the alteration of a building permit to the total floor area of 2,806.61 square meters. In accordance with Article 13 of the former Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 16 of the former Building Act, on May 10, 2012, the Defendant made a permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to engage in the act of development-restricted zone (a building alteration) with the development-restricted zone (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to

(d) Dismissal of an application for suspension of validity, and approval for use after completion of construction works;

After the instant disposition No. 1, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on April 30, 2012, and filed an application for the suspension of the validity of the instant disposition No. 1, but received a decision of dismissal from the first instance court (Seoul High Court District Court Decision 2012No. 147) on June 8, 2012, and filed an immediate appeal against this, but received a decision of dismissal from the appellate court (Seoul High Court High Court 2012No. 197) on August 13, 2012. The reappeal again filed a reappeal with the Supreme Court on December 18, 2012 (Supreme Court 201No. 161). During such process, the Defendant filed an application for approval of the use of the instant factory with the Defendant under Article 30 of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 12138, Oct. 21, 2012; hereinafter “the Intervenor”) on December 13, 2012.

E. Progress of the relevant lawsuit

1) The progress of the litigation seeking revocation of the disposition of approval of factory construction of this case

The plaintiffs are residents living in the area subject to advance examination of the establishment of the factory of this case or owners of farm members in the above area. Among them, the remaining plaintiffs except plaintiffs 5 filed a lawsuit against the defendant on October 21, 2009, seeking the revocation of the disposition of the approval of the establishment of the factory of this case on August 16, 2011. However, on September 28, 2012, the plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment at the appellate court (Seoul High Court 201Nu32326) (Seoul High Court 201Nu326). While the defendant appealed against this, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on March 14, 2013 (Supreme Court 201Du24474). The above appellate court's judgment and the grounds that the approval of this case was unlawful are as follows.

The construction area of the factory of this case is 1,865.1 square meters in the site of this case, which is located within the restricted development zone pursuant to Article 26 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment of Factories (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21665 of Aug. 5, 2009). However, the construction of the factory of this case, which is the factory of this case, is allowed by the Act on the Restriction of Development Areas pursuant to Article 26 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Establishment of Factories (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21665 of Feb. 6, 2009). Since the two-service industry of this case removes all existing brick factories on the site of this case and newly constructs the factory of this case, which is the manufacturing business of ready-mixed, which is the factory of this case, within the restricted development zone of this case, the construction of the factory of this case can not be permitted by the Act on the Establishment of Factories and the alteration of use under Article 12 (1) of the Act.

2) Progress of the revocation lawsuit against the approval of the use of the instant case

Meanwhile, around January 2013, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative suit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant approval of use. However, on June 25, 2013, the first instance court (Seoul High Court 2013Nu45425) rendered a judgment of retirement on the ground that there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant approval of use, and on November 21, 2013, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2013Nu45425) also rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on the same ground, and on January 29, 2015, the Supreme Court (Supreme Court 2013Du35167) rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground that there is no legal interest in the revocation of the instant approval of use of the instant case against the Plaintiffs. The reasons are as follows.

The disposition for the approval of use of ○○ building included in the main text merely causes a legal effect that enables a permitted person to use or benefit from a building constructed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu1398, Nov. 9, 1993; 2006Du18409, Apr. 26, 2007). If the building permit itself is unlawful, it is sufficient to request the cancellation of the building permit disposition, and there is no legal interest in requesting the cancellation of the use permit. The disposition for the approval of use is not a disposition that allows the commencement of the initial use to allow the continuous use or to justify the use, but a disposition that does not give a legal effect that justify the infringement of environmental interests of neighboring residents, such as noise, vibration, high seas, sunshine, etc. Accordingly, the infringement of environmental interests of neighboring residents arising from the use of the building may arise regardless of its legal effect after the disposition for the approval of use, and thus, it is not possible that the intervenor is subject to the revocation of the original approval of 20141.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the whole pleadings, as follows: Gap evidence 1-1 through 11, Gap evidence 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, Gap evidence 5-1 through 5, 10, 15, 20, 23-1 through 6, Gap evidence 13-1 through 10, Gap evidence 17, 22-1 through 24-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul, 11-1 through 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Determination on the main defense of the Defendant and the Intervenor (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Defendant and the Intervenor)

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant presented the following circumstances and asserts that the plaintiffs' interest in the lawsuit of this case was deficient.

1) On December 31, 2012, the construction of the factory of this case had already been completed and the defendant approved the use of the factory of this case. The plaintiffs have no interest to seek revocation of each of the dispositions of this case.

2) Although the plaintiffs' standing to sue was recognized in the revocation case of the disposition of the approval of factory establishment of this case, in the above case, the plaintiffs' standing to sue in the above case should be judged differently from plaintiffs' standing to sue in this case seeking revocation of each disposition of this case against the factory building of this case where the disposition of the approval of factory establishment of this case against the intervenor could not be used as a factory upon revocation of the above case's approval of the above case. Ultimately, the grounds for recognizing plaintiffs' standing to sue in the above case do not constitute grounds for recognizing plaintiffs' standing to sue in this case. The plaintiffs merely refer to the abstract reference of "pollution, green area reduction, noise occurrence" without any proof as to whether their environmental interests are specifically realized as rights. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed unless there is any evidence to acknowledge plaintiffs' standing to sue.

3) The area where the plaintiffs were residing in the area where the plaintiffs had been used as a residential area for several hundred and sixty years, and where it is clearly verified that the damage caused by the existing brick factory operated from 1968 to 1994 does not occur. Since the factory of this case is surrounded by roads, railroads, farm gardens, etc., it does not have any particular influence on the lives of residents residing outside the boundary. Nevertheless, the reason why the plaintiffs maintain the lawsuit of this case is the intention of causing damage to the intervenors. Thus, the plaintiffs' filing of the lawsuit of this case constitutes an abuse of rights clearly.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion of deficiency in interest due to the completion of construction works

A) A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is intended to restore to the original state by excluding any unlawful state caused by the illegal disposition, and to protect and relieve the rights and interests infringed or interfered with such disposition, and even if such disposition is revoked, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation of such disposition if it is impossible to restore it to the original state. Thus, if a construction work has been completed based on the building permit, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation of the building permit disposition. The same applies to a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a building permit disposition as well as a case where a construction work has been completed before the filing of a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the building permit disposition, which is not only when the construction work is completed but also when the construction work has been completed before the date of closing

B) However, if a third party, who is not the other party to a building permit, seeks the revocation of the building permit on the ground that the rights and interests under the Civil Act and the Building Act were infringed on by the building permit, it shall be deemed that no benefit exists to seek the revocation of the building permit disposition due to the impossibility of restoration to its original state 5). On the other hand, as seen earlier, each of the instant dispositions in this case based on the following facts: (a) under the restriction of the Act on the Development Restriction Zones, a pairyang Industries was subject to the approval of factory establishment by the Defendant under the restriction of the Act on the Establishment of Factories; and (b) thereafter, the instant disposition of the factory construction was finally revoked through a lawsuit seeking revocation of the approval of factory construction; and (c) under Article 30(1) of the Development Restriction Zones Act, each of the instant dispositions in this case may be revoked, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the Defendant’s removal, etc. of the instant factory against the Intervenor, even if the construction of the instant factory was completed.

C) In addition, the building permit under the Building Act is a binding or binding discretionary act (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu3038, Dec. 11, 1992; 94Da56883, Jun. 13, 1995; 94Da56883, Jun. 13, 1995; 2002Du17593, Feb. 9, 2001; 2002Du1905, Mar. 28, 2003; 2002Du1905, etc.), and in light of these differences, it is difficult to apply the above legal principles as to the building permit under the Building Act to each of the instant dispositions within the development restriction zone.

D) Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion that there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case based on the above legal principles, and as seen earlier, as long as the defendant could order the intervenor to remove the factory of this case when each disposition of this case is revoked, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs have a interest in the lawsuit seeking revocation of each disposition of this case even if the construction of the factory of this case was completed already.

2) Determination on the assertion of standing to sue

According to the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiffs' standing to sue in this case is recognized. This part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

A) According to the above, in a series of processes to establish, operate, and operate the factory of this case, which is a building of ready-mixed factory in the site of this case, the two-way industry received each of the dispositions of this case concerning the factory of this case from the defendant and thereby received each of the dispositions of this case as to the factory of this case. In light of the above, even if the disposition of the factory construction of this case was finally revoked in the case of revocation of the disposition of the factory construction approval of this case, it is reasonable to view that there is no need to regard standing to sue in the case of revocation of the disposition of the factory construction approval of this case and standing to sue in this case.

B) However, in a case where the scope of the right of standing to sue of a third party who filed a revocation lawsuit on the ground that a person who is not the other party to an administrative disposition directly infringes or is likely to infringe on the environmental interest of the third party is specifically stipulated in the relevant administrative disposition's underlying laws or relevant laws and regulations, the residents in the affected area may be anticipated to have suffered direct and significant environmental damage due to the relevant disposition. Such environmental benefits are direct and specific interests that are individually protected for the individual residents, and the right of standing to sue is acknowledged by being presumed to have been infringed or threatened to infringe on the environmental interest, barring special circumstances, and it is highly probable that such interests are included in the subject area subject to prior examination of environmental impact under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, and the possibility of infringing or infringing on the environmental interest of the residents who are expected to be included in the subject area subject to prior examination of environmental impact under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy is presumed to have been actually presumed to have infringed on the environmental interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14001, Dec. 22, 2006).

C) Article 9 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that "The environmental impact assessment shall be conducted with respect to an area where the environmental impact is to be caused by the implementation of a project and where the scope is set according to the scientific predicted and analyzed data." However, the Framework Act on Environmental Policy does not provide for the scope of the area subject to the prior examination of environmental impact. However, Article 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23718, Apr. 10, 2012) requires an investigation into the area subject to the prior examination of environmental impact, and the prior examination of environmental impact conducted by a specialized institution is also designated as the area subject to the investigation. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the residents of the area included in the area subject to the prior examination of environmental impact to be submitted at the time of prior examination of environmental impact is actually likely to infringe or infringe on the environmental

D) As seen earlier, the application for approval of this case was filed by the Tyang Industries on the site of this case, which is located in the development restriction zone for the purpose of manufacturing ready-mixed, with a factory size of 12,675 square meters on the ground of the site of this case. The defendant, after undergoing prior examination of environmental impact with the Han River Environmental Office, issued the approval of the factory of this case, and according to the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 9 and Gap evidence 14, the two Yangyang Industries selected the Do-si, Do-ri, Do-ri, Do-ri, and Do-ri as the area subject to the advance examination submitted to the defendant. The plaintiff 5 is the neighboring site of this case and the owner of the above area and the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 5 had resided in the above area subject to the prior examination of environmental impact, and the plaintiffs are legally and specifically entitled to seek the cancellation of each environmental disposition of this case.

3) Determination as to the abuse of rights

As seen earlier, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the developments leading up to the Defendant’s each disposition of the instant case against the Intervenor following the approval of factory construction; (b) the progress of the litigation seeking revocation of the instant disposition against the approval of factory construction; and (c) the Plaintiffs were granted a new letter to the Intervenor in this case; or (d) it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor’s filing of the instant lawsuit was inappropriate in light of the concept of justice and cannot be deemed as being acceptable in light of the concept of justice; (b) the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have maintained the instant lawsuit under the intent of solely causing damage to the Intervenor.

4. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Violation of laws and regulations relating to the Development Restriction Zone Act

A) According to Article 11(1)5 of the Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 10(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, “the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over a development restriction zone shall establish a management plan including matters concerning the alteration of the form and quality of land exceeding 10,000 square meters in the development restriction zone and obtain approval from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.” In addition, Article 11(8) of the Development Restriction Zone Act provides that “the Mayor/Do Governor and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall not violate a management plan when he/she manages a development restriction zone, such as permission for the installation of buildings and structures, permission for alteration of the form and quality of land, etc.” Thus, if the Mayor/Do Governor and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu grant permission for alteration of the form and quality of land exceeding 10,000 square meters in the development restriction zone, not the construction of the factory of this case, but the construction of the factory of this case requires alteration of the form and quality of land exceeding 10,000 square meters.

B) According to Article 12(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act, in principle, a building cannot be constructed, altered the purpose of use, or changing the form and quality of land in a development restriction zone. However, in cases falling under subparagraphs 1 through 8 of the proviso of the same paragraph, an act may be conducted with permission from the competent authority. It is clear that the construction of the factory of this case does not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 7. However, it is a matter as to whether the construction of the factory of this case constitutes "the act of changing the purpose of use of a building prescribed by Presidential Decree among buildings under Article 13 for purposes prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as neighborhood living facilities, etc." under Article 18(1)1 through 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act, Article 18(1)5 of the Development Restriction Zone Act provides that "the act of changing the purpose of use of a factory to change the type of an urban factory under Article 34(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act." Since the construction of the factory of this case does not fall under Article 18(2).

C) Article 13 of the Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a building in a development restriction zone is allowed to be reconstructed, reconstructed, repaired, etc., even in cases where the building in the development restriction zone is unlawful in accordance with the relevant statutes. However, the construction of the factory in this case constitutes a new construction rather than reconstruction, reconstruction, remodeling, or substantial repair. Therefore, the construction of the factory in this case does not constitute a special case for the buildings, etc. which are in existence permissible in the development restriction zone, and each disposition in this case is unlawful as it violates Article 13 of the Development Restriction

D) According to the main text of Article 12(4) of the Development Restriction Zone Act and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in order for the head of a Si/Gun/Gu to permit the construction of a building with a total floor area of at least 1,500 square meters, and the alteration of the form and quality of land with a total floor area of at least 5,00 square meters, etc., he/she must undergo the procedures for hearing opinions of residents. However, in this case, the Defendant did not undergo such procedures. Each of the instant dispositions was against the main text of Article 12(4) of

E) The Defendant’s deemed that granting permission to occupy and use the land to be used as access roads for the construction of the instant factory, permission to use and profit from State property for consideration, and permission to divert farmland was illegal to allow changing the form and quality of the land which is not allowed under the Development Restriction Zone Act.

2) Violation of Article 20(1) of the Act on the Establishment of Factories

A) △dong, including the instant application site, can be newly established or expanded only where a large enterprise is less than 1,00 square meters as a result of the construction and extension of a ready-mixed factory as an over-concentration control region, but the building area of the instant factory exceeds 1,000 square meters. Thus, the construction of the instant factory is in violation of Article 20(1) and (2) of the Factory Establishment Act and Article 26 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and is illegal.

B) According to Article 8 subparag. 1 of the Factory Establishment Act and Article 7 subparag. 2 of the Notice of Criteria for Factory Location, the instant factory is not allowed in the instant site, which is a natural green area, and construction of the instant factory is illegal as it violates Article 8 subparag. 1 of the Factory Establishment Act and the notice of the standards for factory location pursuant thereto.

3) Violation of Article 50 of the Factory Establishment Act and notification of restrictions on permission for development activities conducted on July 30, 2009

A) The instant disposition of the approval of factory establishment was finally revoked by the judgment, and the Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions to the two-service industries that did not obtain the approval of the establishment of a factory, and thus, each of the instant dispositions was unlawful as it was in violation of Article 50 of the Factory Establishment Act.

B) In the instant case where the instant disposition of approval of factory construction was finally revoked by a judgment, it cannot be applied to Article 13-3(2) of the Factory Establishment Act, and each of the instant dispositions was unlawful to allow development activities in the instant application site publicly notified as a restricted area of permission for development activities.

B. Determination

1) As seen earlier, the instant disposition of factory construction was revoked finally by the relevant judgment, and thus, no further determination of illegality of each of the instant dispositions cannot be made on the premise of the existence of the instant disposition of factory construction and the legality of the said disposition. On the premise of this, the Plaintiffs’ claims are examined.

A) Whether Articles 12(1) and 13 of the Development Restriction Zone Act are violated

(1) As seen earlier, the instant site is located in a development restriction zone.

(2) In relation to the above facts, the following facts are acknowledged pursuant to Articles 12(1)8, 13, 18(1)5, and 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act, and Articles 18-2(4) and 34 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Factory Construction Act. In other words, an act of constructing a building originally within a development restriction zone cannot be conducted with permission from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu in exceptional cases, and such act can be conducted with exceptional cases, and the case includes “the act of using a factory to change its business to an urban factory pursuant to Article 34 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment of Factory” but the disposition of this case includes not only the case where the registration of the existing brick factory does not fall under an urban factory but also the case where the registration of the existing brick factory was revoked around August 194, 199, and the new construction of the new brick factory and the new construction or renovation of the new factory in this case cannot be seen as a violation of the Act No. 1.

B) Whether Article 20(1) of the Factory Establishment Act is violated

(1) As recognized in the judgment of revocation on the disposition of approval of factory construction of this case, the building area of the factory of this case exceeds 1,000 square meters, and the construction of the factory of this case is not allowed pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Factory Establishment Act and Article 12(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act, etc., and is in violation of the above provisions.

(2) As seen earlier, the instant application site constitutes a natural green area. According to Article 8 subparag. 1 of the Factory Construction Act and attached Table 7 subparag. 2 of the Notice of Criteria for Factory Location pursuant thereto, only construction shall be permitted in cases of ready-mixed factories moving to the relevant Si/Gun area due to an urban development project under the Urban Development Act in a natural green area. Since the instant factory does not fall under this and is not allowed in the instant application site, which is a natural green area, construction of the instant factory is ultimately in violation of Article 8 subparag. 1 of the Factory Construction Act and the notice of standards for factory location pursuant thereto.

(3) In this respect, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

C) Violation of Article 50 of the Factory Establishment Act and notification of the restricted area for permission for development activities on July 30, 2009

The respective dispositions of this case were based on the disposition of approval of factory construction of this case, and on the other hand, as seen earlier, the defendant announced △△dong, including the site of this case, as an area subject to the restriction on permission of development activities on July 30, 2009, which is the transfer of each of the dispositions of this case. However, each of the dispositions of this case was eventually conducted without the approval of factory construction of this case upon the final revocation by the judgment of approval of factory construction of this case, and the application of Article 13-3(2) of the Factory Construction Act is not applicable, and each of the dispositions of this case was the result of permitting development activities in the site of this case publicly notified as an area subject to the restriction of permission of development

2) If so, without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs, each of the dispositions of this case can be sufficiently recognized as unlawful.

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) The defendant's assertion

Each disposition of this case constitutes a beneficial administrative disposition against the Intervenor and thus, the legal principle on the cancellation and withdrawal restriction of beneficial administrative disposition should be applied even in the deliberation of the lawsuit of this case. If each disposition of this case is revoked, the interests the Plaintiffs may obtain are remarkably significant, and thus, the cancellation of each disposition of this case is not allowed in violation of the legal principle on the cancellation and withdrawal restriction of beneficial administrative disposition.

2) Determination

In the case of cancelling a beneficial administrative disposition, the right of revocation is infringed upon the people's vested vested rights. Even if a ground for revocation exists, the exercise of the right of revocation shall be decided by comparing and comparing with the disadvantage that the other party receives only when it is necessary for the important public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party, and where the disadvantage that the other party would suffer is greater than the necessity of the public interest due to such disposition, it is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17427, May 28, 2009). However, the above legal principle as to the restriction on cancellation of the beneficial administrative disposition is applied to the revocation of authority by an administrative agency, and it shall not be applied to the revocation of litigation, and where the illegality is recognized in the revocation of litigation, it shall be revoked in principle without the need for balancing profits. The defendant'

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below to accept the plaintiffs' appeal.

[Attachment]

Judges Yellow-Jil (Presiding Judge)

1) On September 14, 2012, pursuant to Article 11 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Building Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 552, Dec. 12, 2012), the Defendant accepted a report on the change of construction participants in the instant development restriction zone (construction owner) from the Tyang Industries to the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

2) The Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act was amended by Act No. 6842 on December 30, 2002, and its name was changed to the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act and was enforced on July 1, 2003; hereinafter collectively, the above Act was amended and enforced on July 1, 2003.

2. The term “restricted population zone” means large cities and their surrounding areas, determined by the Presidential Decree, where the concentration of industry and the rate of population increase is so high that it is necessary to promote the relocation of and restrict the establishment or increase in factories due to the high concentration of population increase.

4) In light of the developments leading up to the amendment of the Development Restriction Zone Act, the Development Restriction Zone Act, which is applied at the time of Disposition No. 1 of this case under the convenience of understanding, is exceptionally amended.

5) According to Article 79(1) of the Building Act (Article 79(1) of the same Act, where the permitting authority may order removal of a building, the case is very limited to “cases where a building site or a building violates an order or a disposition under the Building Act or the Building Act,” and even if a building permit is completed, it is deemed impossible to restore the building to its original state under the Building Act, barring any special circumstance.

Note 6) Article 50 of the Factory Establishment Act