1. The plaintiff A, F, and H's lawsuit shall be dismissed respectively.

All of the plaintiffs' claims except 2, A, F, and H.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 6, 2013, the intervenor, who is the owner of 9,166 square meters and 528 square meters in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, before the division, filed an application with the Defendant for permission for development activities and a request for consultation on the diversion of farmland to enter the said 41 square meters and 139 square meters in 180 square meters in Cheongju-si, and 528 square meters in 3,950 square meters in 1st century in 2013 and 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 200 (hereinafter “instant facilities”). On January 20, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for permission for development activities and the permission for construction to be deemed to have been granted to the Intervenor for the diversion of farmland (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On September 1, 2014, an intervenor filed an application for change of a building permit with respect to partial change of the size and placement of a building, and obtained permission for change from the Defendant on September 19, 2014; and again, filed an application for change of a building permit with respect to partial change of the structure on May 12, 2015; and obtained permission for change from the Defendant on May 15, 2015.

B. Since then, in line with the instant facility site and the access road, the I field prior to the said division is divided into one 3,950 square meters, K 41 square meters, L 5,175 square meters, and the said J prior to the said division is divided into 389 square meters prior to J, M 139 square meters, and the said I field 3,950 square meters prior to the said division were incorporated into the instant facility site, and the said K 41 square meters and the preceding 139 square meters prior to the said division were incorporated into the entry.

(hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case" in total, including the site and access roads for the facility of this case). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, 10, 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the inquiry into the head of the petition office of this court, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. 1) The defendant and the intervenor are the subject-matter of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, and they are all unlawful. 2) The defendant and the intervenor are the subject-matter of the lawsuit.