1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 17, 2017, A changed the area to 5,506 square meters after the division and merger after the 6,199 square meters of land in Gangwon-do, Jeonwon-gun, Gangwon-do, and the land category was also changed to miscellaneous land.

(hereinafter “instant land”) filed an application for a construction permit with respect to the construction of a stable (hereinafter “instant stable”) on the ground.

B. On January 15, 2018, the Defendant accepted the application for the above building permit and permitted the construction of the instant stable.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). / [The grounds for recognition] Nos. 6, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. 1) The Plaintiffs filed for the revocation of the instant disposition by asserting that the instant disposition is anticipated to cause damage, such as the destruction of living environment, etc., while residing or having farmland in the Iron-gun, Gangwon-do. 2) On its own initiative, we examine the legality of the instant lawsuit.

A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is a lawsuit seeking the restoration to the original state by removing an illegal state caused by the illegal disposition, and protecting and remedying the rights and interests infringed or interfered with the disposition, and thus the cancellation of such illegal

If reinstatement is impossible, there is no benefit to seek cancellation.

If construction work has been completed on the basis of the construction permit, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation of the construction permit.

As can be seen, there is no benefit to seek cancellation of the construction permit disposition, not only where construction work is completed before filing a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the construction permit disposition, but also where construction work is completed before the date of closing argument of the fact

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du18409 Decided April 26, 2007). 3 In full view of the entire purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 15 and 16 of the evidence Nos. 15 and 16, A has already completed the new construction of a stable of this case, and prior to the date of closing the argument of this case, Oct. 1, 2018.