1. All appeals filed by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be those resulting from the participation in the appeal;

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part of the reasons are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

From the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance to the third to fourth of the judgment of the court of first instance (1.e., part of the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

E. Plaintiff B owns 30,248 square meters of I forest in Scheon-si, and Plaintiff C owns 264 square meters prior to J, K 1,66 square meters, N 1,547 square meters, and 2,210 square meters of L warehouse sites. Of the aforesaid I forest 30,248 square meters, 13,142 square meters of the said I forest 30,248 square meters, 133 square meters of the said K 1,66 square meters of the said K 1,66 square meters, 1,547 square meters of the said N 1,547 square meters of the said N 1,547 square meters of the said L 2,210 square meters of the storage site, and 1,374 square meters of the said L 2,210 square meters of each of the instant industrial complex sites.

The Plaintiffs, as married couple, are cultivating and producing trees with the trade name of “M farm members” in the whole land owned by each of the above parties.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Judgment on the main defense of the Defendant and the Intervenor

A. According to the approval and public notice of the industrial complex plan of this case on September 13, 2012, the defendant and the intervenor determined that each land of the above 1. E., owned by the plaintiffs belonging to the prospective site of the industrial complex of this case is to be expropriated, and the legal interest of the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have been infringed solely on the instant disposition that only extends the project period. Thus, even if the plaintiffs' claim is accepted on the grounds of procedural defect of hearing of opinions by residents, etc., the plaintiffs' opinion cannot be viewed as standing to sue. 2) Even if the plaintiffs' claim is accepted on the grounds of procedural defect of hearing of opinions by the amendment of the Industrial Complex Fire Services Act of August 11, 2015, the hearing of opinions can be omitted in the case of the alteration of minor matters such as extension of the project period during the industrial complex plan of this case. Accordingly, the lawsuit

B. A third party, who is not the other party to the judgment, is also the pertinent administrative disposition.