1. Of the instant lawsuits, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuits on the [Attachment 1] Nos. 24. through 56. and 58. through 792.

A. If a local government applying for a pilot project is aware of any inappropriate cause, such as environmental and public utility technology, and presents a new project plan in compliance with the guidelines of this case and the review criteria of this case, it shall promote a pilot project for inland national parks by undergoing appropriate procedures.

As a result of the deliberation on the amendment of park planning (draft) submitted by the E-Gun National Park Committee at the 97th National Park Committee that was notified to the intervenors on July 2, 2012, I rejected it without meeting the guidelines in this case and the review criteria in this case.

However, according to the resolution that it is necessary in the case of Seoaksan, a shipment office may again carry out a business plan, but it may be possible to carry out an appropriate procedure for a business plan that meets the following conditions:

An area in which an eco-friendliness, public interest technology, etc. is removed from the inappropriate ground: An environmentally inappropriate ground (e.g., difficulties in normal anti-control), lack of technology, etc.* Specific non-conformity ground: see a review report by the private expert committee.

B. Although the routes presented by the Intervenor for rejection of the second amendment following the resolution of September 25, 2013 of the National Park Committee No. 105 that rejected the second amendment of the Guidelines in this case and the review criteria in this case have been somewhat supplemented compared to the previous plan, the guidelines in this case and the review criteria in this case have not been satisfied, it is rejected. However, considering that the Nansansan National Park is an area where the necessity of the pilot project has been recognized in the 97th National Park Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "National Park Committee") in the past, it is a place where many visitors have high possibility of damaging access to access, it is to select routes that conform to the review criteria in this case and promote the selection of the pilot project through proper procedures.

On October 7, 2013, the defendant submitted a notice to the intervenor on October 7, 2013 by Ear-gun as a result of the deliberation of the National Park Committee.