1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit after the filing of an appeal is due to the participation in the lawsuit.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of a small and medium enterprise establishment plan to establish a saw production factory (a building area: 2,200 square meters for manufacturing facilities, 1,140 square meters for manufacturing facilities, 2,200 square meters for ancillary facilities, 16,795 square meters for a total of 15,410 square meters among 22,401 square meters of L2,401 square meters of forests and fields, and 7,334 square meters of forest and fields, prior to the merger, and 16,385 square meters

B. On October 2, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition on October 2, 2014 that deemed that permission for mountainous district conversion, etc. is granted pursuant to Article 35(1) of the former Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (Amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017; hereinafter “Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “approval of the instant project”).

On September 10, 2015, the Defendant notified the revocation of permission for mountainous district conversion on the ground that the Plaintiff did not implement measures to prevent disasters under Article 37 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, and notified the revocation of permission for mountainous district conversion deemed to have been granted on September 21, 2015 following hearing procedures.

(hereinafter “Revocation of this case’s permission for mountainous district conversion”). The Defendant informed the Plaintiff that the revocation of the permission for mountainous district conversion of this case can file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation.

In addition, on February 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a prior notice of revocation of the approval of the instant project plan on the ground that the permission to change the form and quality of land was revoked, thereby making it impossible to establish a factory. On March 8, 2016, the Defendant revoked the approval of the instant project plan on March 18, 2016 following the hearing procedure.

(hereinafter “Cancellation of the instant project plan”). (e)

Meanwhile, the Intervenor joining the Defendant is a resident living in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s project site.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's No. 1 through 5, 11, 14, 15 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's entries in the evidence No. 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the revocation of the permission for mountainous district conversion of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1.