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 grounds for this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for a partial revision as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

After the "F" in Part 11 of the Second Instance, "each part of the land" shall be added.

In Part 2, the "application for permission for development activities" in Part 13 shall be made by filing an application for permission for development activities (construction of a structure and alteration of form and quality) (hereinafter referred to as "application in this case").

Article 47 of the same Act shall be amended to "Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act" in Part 2 of the third Table.

Part 2, below the third Schedule, " November 9, 2018" shall be applied to " November 19, 2018".

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiffs met the requirements for exemption from the duty of recovery from illegal mountainous districts pursuant to Articles 39 (3) and 44 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and Article 3 of the Addenda. In such a case, the defendant must be bound by the above provision and exempt the plaintiffs from the duty of recovery. However, the disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiffs' request for permission of development without exempting the plaintiffs from the duty of recovery, is unlawful. 2) Even if the defendant is not bound by the above provision and can make discretionary decisions on the application of this case, even if the defendant can decide on the application of this case without discretionary power, the defendant did not exercise discretionary power by failing to consider the criteria for permission of conversion at the time of the disposition of this case, or abused the plaintiffs' application of this case which did not violate the criteria for permission

B. Since this part of the relevant statutes is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (including the relevant part), it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. The reasons for this part of this Court’s findings are as follows.