beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2)
C. Foods
(a) Forms 5 through 9 on the third side are as follows:
C. On January 27, 2014, the Intervenor determined an urban management plan concerning research facilities (the building-to-land ratio of the research institute in this case does not exceed 15.95%, and the floor area ratio does not exceed 24.98%) pursuant to Article 30 of the former National Land Planning Act, and on September 15, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for a building permit for the research institute in this case with the Mayor through relevant procedures, such as designating a project implementer and obtaining authorization of an implementation plan. On October 27, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for a building permit for new construction of the research institute in this case with the Mayor, and on October 27, 2014, the GUU market did not undergo the procedures for hearing opinions and deliberation of the urban planning committee, while raising the building-to-land ratio and floor area ratio of the research institute in this case.”
B. Part 4 of Part 5 of the 5th page “AC” is regarded as “AC” (hereinafter referred to as “AC intervenors”).
(c) from the fifth bottom to the 10th instance court, the term “this court” shall be read as “the first instance court”;
At the bottom of 5, the 6th "No. 40" shall be raised from "40,73".
2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. The supplementary intervenor actively concealed the occurrence or volume of wastewater generated from concrete mixtures. The defendant believed the supplementary intervenor's assertion that the amount of wastewater generated from the research institute of this case is less than 0.1 cubic meters in 0.1 cubic meters and recognized it as a fact, without confirming the site or obtaining expert advice.