1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

B On August 6, 2015, the Defendant applied for the approval of the establishment of a new factory by using 1,081 square meters (hereinafter “instant factory site”) among 34,413 square meters of C forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”) as a site in Namyang-si, Namyang-si. On August 6, 2015, the Defendant applied for the permission of development for the purpose of building a factory and an access road site regarding the instant factory site on August 2016, and acquired the ownership of the instant forest on September 5, 2016.

On September 29, 2016, after deliberation by the urban planning committee on development activities, the Defendant issued a new approval and permission disposition on the factory site of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to B, and permission for development activities was deemed processing.

On August 8, 2017, the instant forest was divided into KRW 10,600 square meters for D forest, KRW 21,162 square meters for E forest land, F forest land 2,05 square meters, KRW 481 square meters for G road, and H forest land 735 square meters for registration conversion. As above, the land category of D forest divided was changed from “forest” to “factory site.”

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a provisional number), and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, according to the guidelines for the Operation of Permission for Development Acts, the summary of the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, the access road at least 6 meters in width should be established in the case of the factory site of this case in which the size of development is more than 5,00 square meters and less than 30,000 square meters. Since Eul installed a retaining wall in part of part of the 3,098 square meters adjacent to the existing road without the plaintiff's consent, and installed a access road within a width of 6 meters, and obtained permission for development from the defendant on such premise, the disposition of this case is unlawful and revoked, and since the disposition of this case results in the provision of the land owned by the plaintiff as the access road to the factory site

The gist of the defendant's main defense is that of the safety.