The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

Plaintiff

A on December 2, 2015, the Defendant filed a construction report, including permission for development, permission for diversion of farmland, report on installation of private sewage treatment facilities, etc., with a view to constructing one-story detached housing of 86.49 square meters in the building area of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “Cri”) with the Defendant on the ground of 840 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “Cri”), and the Plaintiff B filed a construction report, including permission for development, permission for diversion of farmland, and report on installation of private sewage treatment facilities, with the Defendant on December 8, 2015 to newly construct one-story detached housing of 677 square meters in E field and 209 square meters in the building area of 8

(hereinafter the above D Land, E Land, and F Land are collectively referred to as “the instant land,” and the Plaintiffs’ building report is collectively referred to as “each of the instant building reports”). (B)

On January 4, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the refusal to accept each of the instant building reports on the ground that the instant land does not meet the criteria for permission for development activities (the relevant area and its surrounding area should not be likely to cause environmental pollution damage, etc. due to air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, pollution, noise, vibration, dust dust, etc.) and on the ground that “where a detached house is isolated as an urban infrastructure (road, tap water, etc.) is insufficient, it is likely to damage the surrounding natural environment and water pollution if necessary.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

Around June 2014, J initially divided the above land into I, D, and K, and subsequently voluntarily withdrawn the application for a building permit from the Defendant who requested the supplementation of access roads, etc., but subsequently sold the instant land to the Plaintiffs without implementing the supplement. D.

In this case.