1. Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City added to the Plaintiff’s appeal to the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City and the appellate court.

1. The reasons why the court should state this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the use of the "Defendant" as the "principal defendant", the reasons why this part of the disposition is stated are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to a claim against the primary defendant (whether a disposition is lawful) is consistent with Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, in addition to the following parts, other than the parts which are written or added, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "Defendants" in the 3th, 12th, 6th, 4th, 7, 8th, and 9 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be applied to the "principal defendant".

Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, " was permitted without restriction," in Part 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, " It has been permitted without restriction, and the plaintiff also received the report of the dust scattering business."

On the 6th of the judgment of the first instance court, “other than there are” in Part 9 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The Act on Planning and Utilization of National Land stipulated in the Clean Air Conservation Act and the natural green-belt area, which prescribes that even if the main defendant received the report of the plaintiff’s business generating scattering dust (No. 3), he shall report to the person who intends to conduct the business generating dust, which is emitted from scattering dust, and that the facilities to control scattering dust are installed or necessary measures are different, and the matters to be considered at the institutional purpose and decision stage are different, and even if the plaintiff, Incheon Metropolitan City, E, and F, made a G agreement around September 201 (Evidence 16 of the above Convention), the primary defendant is not a party to the above agreement.

3. Determination on the claim against the conjunctive defendant

A. The public official in charge of the plaintiff's conjunctive defendant's conjunctive defendant's assertion is related from 20 years ago.