1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1.The following facts do not conflict between the parties:

On November 1, 2005, the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party C") filed an application with the defendant for the business establishment approval to newly build a factory for other debt processing and storage on the ground of Gangseo-si D, and the defendant approved the above business plan on January 3, 2006.

B. After July 7, 2009, the non-party company added the business of manufacturing marine animals freezing products, applied for revision of the business plan to expand the building area, and on July 7, 2009, the defendant filed an application for revision of the business plan.

7. Around 28.28. Around November 1, 2009, the company approved the above alteration plan, and the company commenced the construction of a factory around November 1, 2009.

C. On December 22, 2009, the Defendant discovered the construction without installing pollution prevention facilities and ordered the installation of pollution prevention facilities. On February 201, 2010, the Defendant suspended the construction until the non-party company performed it.

Around June 29, 2010, the non-party company filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the modification of the business plan to extend the period of permission for exclusive use and the period of completion of completion of industrial complexes by November 30, 201, and the Defendant approved it on July 13, 2010.

E. On November 30, 2012, the non-party company again filed an application with the Defendant for approval to revise the project plan to extend the period of permission for the diversion of mountainous districts and the period of completion of the project until November 30, 201, and the Defendant notified the Defendant that the agreement on conversion of mountainous districts should be revoked if there is no project progress by December 6, 2012.

F. Nevertheless, the Defendant, who had no business progress, conducted a hearing for revocation of permission. According to the result of the hearing, the period of permission for mountainous district conversion was extended to June 30, 2013, but the non-party company failed to complete the construction by the said period. On July 19, 2013, the Defendant notified that the Defendant submitted a restoration plan by August 23, 2013, when cancelling permission for mountainous district conversion.

G. Meanwhile, the Defendant on February 19, 2014.