1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of adding the following judgments as to the allegations made by the plaintiffs in this court, which are set forth in the 8th 10th 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this is quoted.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The plaintiffs, despite the fact that there was the instant ruling revoking the previous disposition that did not accept the application of this case even in this court, asserted that the defendant's issuance of the instant disposition that did not accept the application of this case on the grounds of non-permission in the previous disposition has been unlawful against the binding force of the ruling.

However, according to the above Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7705 Decided 2003Du7705, the binding force of the ruling is only the recognition and judgment of the facts constituting the order of the ruling and its premise, i.e., the decision, and the previous disposition was revoked by the ruling.

Even if it does not conflict with the binding force of the previous disposition for any reason different from the previous disposition.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is contrary to the above legal principles, and it is without merit to examine the argument itself.

B. The plaintiffs at this court, at the time of the previous disposition, did not point out any points except that the defendant notified only the securing of the consent letter of the owner of adjoining farmland as a supplement. Accordingly, the defendant expressed that all the requirements for permission in addition to the above supplement are met, and accordingly, the plaintiffs are allowed to submit the above consent letter, and the part without the supplementary order is without any problem.