1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. On October 26, 1995, a three-dimensional environmental company (hereinafter “TG environment”) obtained a construction waste interim disposal business license with the size of 26,225 square meters of land in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu (a part of the previous G land was divided on November 12, 2001; hereinafter “instant land”) from the Defendant as the location of the place of business, and obtained a change of the content of changing the location of the place of business into E and F land around July 25, 2006.

B. On November 27, 2006, the Intervenor was subject to an administrative disposition of business suspension of 1 month on the ground that the Intervenor changed the permitted matters without obtaining permission to change the construction waste disposal facilities and the location of the office on July 2, 2008, when he was engaged in construction waste interim disposal business on the instant land that is not the above E and F land that is the location of the place of business subject to the said revised permission, by taking over the above business from the hydroelectric environment and succeeding the license.

C. On December 1, 2009, the Intervenor entered into a lease agreement with A, B, and C, which is a majority right holder of the instant land, for three years with respect to the lease term of 29,752 square meters among the instant land (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On February 201, the Intervenor filed an application for permission to change the instant land by adding the instant land to the place of business where the construction waste disposal business is located, along with the lease agreement.

On April 1, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the Intervenor’s application for permission to change the status on the ground that the person who agreed to the present lease agreement is less than a majority due to changes in the share after the instant lease agreement, and that the lease agreement entered into with the majority equity right holders should be newly submitted.

E. Accordingly, the Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the above return disposition as the Incheon District Court 2010Guhap2870, and the above court maintained the instant lease agreement valid at the time of the above return disposition on February 18, 2011.