1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant established a factory against the Plaintiff on May 27, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. On March 21, 2000, B Co., Ltd. registered a asphalt factory in the area of 3,773 square meters of land for a factory in the Gu-U.S. Si on March 21, 200 (hereinafter “instant land”) and has produced asphalt.

A. The conditions of approval for the change of the type of business of the company name B(Plaintiff) prior to the change of manufacturing facilities of the factory site B(Plaintiff) in the name of the company that is the representative of the company that is divided under subparagraph 6 of A and the change of the type of business are to be issued (No. 6, No. 2, No. 17-2, No. 17) and the conditions of approval for the change of the change of the type of business after the change of 1508.44, 205.78.57 reduction or decrease of the business on the business of ready-dong, Dong Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, 205.3.47 reduction

2. Matters and conditions to be treated as authorized or permitted under the approved matters: None.

3. Matters that require separate approval.

(a) Building permit under Article 8 of the Building Act (including sewage treatment facilities);

(b) Report on the installation of discharging facilities of atmosphere, wastewater, noise, vibration and wastewater under Article 9 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act;

(c) Reporting on the waste discharger at the business place under the Wastes Management Act;

(d) When constructing a factory site, a report on a project generating scattering dust and a prior report on specific construction works shall be filed not later than three days prior to the commencement of the project;

B. On October 27, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the alteration of registration of factory from “B (representative Plaintiff)” to “B (representative Plaintiff),” and on the same day, obtained approval from the Defendant for the extension of factory and alteration of business type as follows pursuant to Article 13 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “Establishment Act”) and Article 19(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(hereinafter referred to as the "approval for Establishment of this case" and a factory to be constructed under the above approval shall be referred to as the "factory of this case").

Since then, on March 19, 2013, the Defendant revoked the approval for establishment of this case pursuant to subparagraph 3 of Article 13-5 of the Factory Establishment Act on the ground that “the report was not filed within four years after the approval for establishment of this case was granted.”