1. On April 26, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of rejecting an application for completion inspection of development activities filed against the Plaintiffs is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs, D, and E (hereinafter “five Plaintiffs, etc.”) obtained permission from the Defendant for development activities for the purpose of creating a site for the Act on Resource Circulation-Related Facilities (Waste Recycling) (hereinafter “instant road development activities”), with respect to the instant road sites, including Pyeongtaek-si and F, and five parcels (hereinafter “instant road site”).

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs were permitted from the Defendant on the same day, with respect to the Plaintiff A and one parcel outside G, and with respect to the Plaintiff B and two parcels, the Plaintiff C obtained permission for the development activities for the purpose of creating a site for resources circulation-related facilities (hereinafter “instant construction development activities”).

B. From February 2015, the Plaintiffs commenced construction of a road site according to the permission of the instant road development act and completed the construction around October 25, 2015.

On the other hand, on May 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a building report following the instant building development permission (hereinafter “instant building report”) with the Defendant, and commenced construction of each of the buildings for resources circulation-related facilities accordingly, and Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B obtained temporary approval for the use of each of the above buildings on August 30, 2016.

C. On May 13, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the name of the person permitted to develop the instant road from five persons, including the Plaintiffs, to three Plaintiffs. However, the Defendant requested the Defendant to supplement the submission of a written consent to change the name of the person permitted to use the instant road. On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiffs rejected the said application for permission on change on the ground that it did not supplement it.

After September 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an application for permission to change the same content of development activities, but the Defendant returned the said application for permission to change on September 7, 2016.

The Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for a completion inspection on the instant road development act on January 24, 2017, but the Defendant completed the completion inspection on January 26 and February 16, 2017.