1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case being cited or added by the following parts, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. On the second side of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first half to fifteen shall be followed as follows.

“1) Upon the deterioration of the above medical waste treatment facilities in around 2013, the Plaintiff planned to close the existing incineration facilities and install new incineration facilities with a disposal capacity of 1.5 tons per hour (Article 25(3) of the Wastes Control Act, Article 28(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of Ministry of Environment No. 532, Dec. 31, 2013; hereinafter the same) and attached Table 7 of the same Act, the Plaintiff was equipped with incineration facilities with a disposal capacity of 1t or more per hour in such new establishment.

(b)";

B. From No. 7 to No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “All of the instant applications are owned by the Plaintiff, land category is a factory site and a planned management area.

In addition, the existing waste facilities are not observed outside the forest unless the smokestack and smoke of the existing waste disposal facilities are observed in the new 3rd village inside the north, because they are shielding by the surrounding forests.

In addition, “the result of on-site inspection by the court of the first instance” shall be added to “each entry in the evidence No. 29” of the first instance judgment No. 14. 2. (c) Following the second instance judgment No. 15. 4. The formulation of an urban management plan according to the proposal in this case has a meaning to re-verification of the status where the business is already being operated in the same manner as the project in this case at the place of the application in this case, and it is difficult to see that it is a new drafting contrary to the basic urban planning at the time of the first instance judgment.”