1. The revocation of the permission granted by the Defendant to open a private road on August 7, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

(2) On April 19, 2017, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered, and on April 19, 2017, with respect to the previous disposition of revocation, the judgment of invalidation was rendered on the grounds that procedural defects

The above decisions were finalized through the appellate procedure, etc.

E. Accordingly, on August 7, 2017, the Defendant, after undergoing necessary procedures such as hearings, revoked the previous permission disposition for the following reasons, and publicly announced the details thereof.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant cancellation disposition”). Reasons for not obtaining permission to engage in the development activities on the road opening permit - Development activities may damage the surrounding natural scenery and aesthetic view due to the development activities, and environmental pollution, destruction of the ecosystem, and occurrence of danger and injury caused by soil pollution, noise, vibration, dust, etc. in the region and surrounding areas (hereinafter referred to as “National Land Planning and Utilization Act”).

Article 56 of this Ordinance, Article 24(1) and attached Table 1 of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Ordinance on Permission for Development Activities / [Criteria for Recognition] of Permission for Opening Private Road as a result of a non-existence of development activities in violation of the restrictions under other laws and regulations pursuant to Article 4(3)3 of the Private Road Act, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as follows: Gap's evidence and evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul's evidence No. 1 (including each available number,

2. Whether the disposition of revocation of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition of revocation is not only abstract and ambiguous, but also does not constitute grounds for revocation under each subparagraph of Article 13(1) of the Private Road Act, and even if the previous disposition of permission can be revoked pursuant to Article 4(3)3 of the Private Road Act, it does not violate any restriction under any other Act and subordinate statutes in the case of the Plaintiff, and is also in violation of the principle of proportionality and the principle of protection of trust, and thus, it should be revoked unlawfully. 2) The Defendant’s permission of opening a private road should be revoked based on whether the main building report is accepted.