1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for a dismissal or addition as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The grounds alleged in this Court while filing an appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff and the defendant in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted to the court of first instance and this court are examined, the findings of fact in the first instance court and the judgment are recognized as justifiable). 2.

(a) Parts 1) 3 and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance were 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 26, 30, 31 and 32 of Category A, and Category B 1 through 4 (including branch numbers) of Category B of Article 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 26, 30 through 32, 39, 12, 17, 218, 26, 26, 30 through 49, 12, 17, 21, 26, 30 or 32 of Category B of Article 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance to increase 20 tons by 160 tons for 20 years or more, 130, 1961, 297, 197, 2010 tons or more for 20 years or more for 25 years or more for 3 years or more for 197 years or more.2 years or less.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the nationwide construction waste generation volume has increased, and that the construction waste generation quantity has not increased significantly due to the population decrease, and that the construction waste generation quantity in the Daejeon Metropolitan City would not go beyond the present level.

However, there is a mere increase or decrease in the construction waste generation quantity in Daejeon Metropolitan City.