1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

1. Details of ruling;

A. On July 30, 2012, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for the purpose of creating a site for entry into a site for the purpose of securing access roads to C forest land when permission for new construction of a single house was obtained (hereinafter “the instant land”). On July 30, 2012, the Intervenor filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for the purpose of creating a site for entry into a site for four lots, such as the Seosung City Mayor, Seosung City D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On September 24, 2012, the chemical Mayor rejected the instant application on the ground that “the instant land is in violation of Article 58(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Article 56(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in excess of 50 meters from the base table and 25 meters from the tidal wave.”

(hereinafter “the original disposition of this case”). (c)

The supplementary intervenor claimed a revocation trial against the original disposition of this case against the Defendant, and the Defendant rendered a ruling that the original disposition of this case is revoked (hereinafter “instant ruling”) as of April 10, 2013. D.

After that, the supplementary intervenor filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for the creation of a site for entering the land in the instant case with the mayor, and obtained permission from July 12, 2013, and received the certificate of completion of the development activities from the mayor on July 31, 2013 after completing the development activities accordingly.

E. The Plaintiff is a resident living near the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's ground of appeal that with regard to permission for development activities for the creation of a site by the plaintiff's assertion intervenor's entry into a site, "the revocation of permission application for development activities made by the conversion market on October 6, 2010 by the assistant intervenor shall be made."