1. The supplementary participation of the Intervenor joining the Defendant is permitted.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions;

A. On February 26, 2010, the Defendant’s Intervenor filed an application for permission for liquefied petroleum gas filling business with the Defendant, and the first and second non-permission disposition, and the second administrative litigation process (1) of the Defendant’s Intervenor filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said non-permission disposition with respect to the Defendant’s land located in the development-restricted zone, F, C, and G, and two lots (hereinafter “project site for the Defendant”) located in the Defendant, and the Defendant changed the H land adjacent to the Defendant after the third non-permission disposition. The Defendant filed the first non-permission disposition on March 5, 2010, and received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Defendant by filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said non-permission disposition.

(Seoul High Court Decision 2010Guhap1570, Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu3033, Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9768). (2) On November 16, 2011, the Defendant rendered a second non-permission disposition on the ground that the project site of the Defendant’s Intervenor did not secure more than 5 km road distance across the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City development restriction zone. The Defendant received a final and conclusive judgment by filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the second non-permission disposition.

(In Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap793, Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu35674, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Du10311.

D on February 19, 2013, the first non-permission disposition and administrative litigation process D applied for a liquefied petroleum gas charging project to the Defendant on the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E and three lots (hereinafter referred to as “D site”) located within the development-restricted zone.

On February 22, 2013, the defendant failed to secure the distance of the road passing through the development restriction zone of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City at least 5 km, and it is an area of buried cultural heritage that needs to be preserved as an area of buried cultural heritage.