1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the column of reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Parts which are dismissed or added in the judgment of the first instance; and

(a) The following is added to Chapter 4, Chapter 8, and the following is raised as “(c) judgment” in Part 9 of the same paragraph.

The plaintiff B of the facts of recognition that the place of business of this case is planned to be located at the disposal facility of this case (the estimated volume of the disposal is 554.8 tons a year, and the size of the disposal is 95 km/h, 16hr/ray incineration (hereinafter referred to as "the disposal facility of this case").

A) A report was filed, and the Defendant accepted the report on the commencement of the use of the instant treatment facilities on April 25, 1998 on condition that he/she shall install the storage facilities and store wastes on March 6, 1998. On October 14, 1998, Plaintiff A, who succeeded to the rights and duties of Plaintiff B, indicated that the public official of the Defendant’s office confirmed the existence of the instant treatment facilities at the instant place of business on June 13, 2001, and requested the submission of the reason, “the replacement of the machinery” around June 26, 2001. Access roads that can be controlled by the instant place of business, pursuant to the land of local river D (hereinafter “instant access roads”). On June 26, 2001, Plaintiff A, who succeeded to the rights and duties of Plaintiff B, expressed a position that “the replacement of the machinery” is “the replacement of the machinery.”

A. The access road of this case was solely reported on August 2002, that the part exceeding 2 km due to the impact of typhoon “sluis” was lost, and on October 4, 2005, the public officials belonging to the defendant visited the workplace of this case to the effect that “the access to the workplace of this case is impossible due to the loss of the access road of this case, and there is no treatment facility and storage facility of this case in the workplace of this case.”

Plaintiff

B The access road of this case is repaired.