1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the supplementary participation.

Details of the disposition

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) obtained on February 21, 2006 permission for the installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities with respect to 1,950 square meters and 2,355 square meters of livestock excreta discharge facilities on the ground 1,950 square meters and 2,355 square meters of high-gun, Chang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, BJ (hereinafter referred to as the “first land”) on the ground of the

(B) No. 3) The supplementary intervenor obtained a building permit of 1,500 square meters and composts of 180 square meters on the ground from the Defendant on February 28, 2006, and completed the construction permit and completed the construction permit on October 23, 2006.

(hereinafter “instant first stable.” On October 19, 2010, an auxiliary intervenor obtained a construction permit of 2,355 square meters on the land of 1,201 and 2, 270 square meters on the ground, 250 square meters in a warehouse, and 251.2 square meters in a warehouse from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant previous disposition”) and filed a commencement report on November 10, 201, but did not perform construction work.

On April 26, 2017, the supplementary intervenor obtained permission for change from the Defendant on April 26, 2017 to increase the size of 473.2m2m2m2 in the above warehouse, and the size of 251.2m2m2 in the above warehouse to 314m2m2 in the above warehouse. The supplementary intervenor started construction work with the permission for change (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to move the location of 2,355m2 in south to the south of 30m20m2 in the above house and started construction work with approximately 80

(hereinafter referred to as “the second stable of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] : (a) there is no dispute; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including the provisional number); (c) Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4; and (d) the whole purport of the pleadings; and (c) this court’s decision as to the main purpose of the defense of safety as to this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the part against the plaintiffs among the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; and therefore, (d) this part is cited as it is in accordance

The supplementary intervenor asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful because the period of filing the instant lawsuit was lapsed after the closing of argument in the instant court. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs had known of the instant disposition 90 days prior to the date of filing the instant lawsuit.