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 the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s permission for development activities, etc. 1) On November 23, 2009, the Plaintiff is deemed to be the Plaintiff’s land of B forest land No. 994 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

(2) Around January 2010, the Defendant filed an application for permission to engage in the development activities for storage and treatment facilities of dangerous substances (gas station) site creation. The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff’s land is subject to re-consultation after completion of the road confirmation and packing works as to the application for permission to build a road for the installation of a speed-off lane (road) with the relation where the Plaintiff’s land is adjacent to the area of the confirmation and packing work of the Seodaemun-do, which is in force in Gyeonggi-do.

3) On February 8, 2010, the Plaintiff was granted a construction permit from the Defendant to construct a reinforced concrete building for storage and treatment facilities of hazardous substances (gas station, office office) on the Plaintiff’s land. B. On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor filed an application for a road connecting permission to use the road for the use of the gas station and access to the gas station and eight parcels outside Ansan-si, for the Defendant as the oil station, and around that time, the Plaintiff filed an application for a road connecting permission to use the road for the use of the gas station and access to the gas station and eight parcels outside Ansan-si, the Plaintiff filed an application for a road connecting permission to use the road for the gas station and access to the gas station and to use the road for the gas station and access to the other three parcels outside Ansan-si, the Nam-si, Inc., which had prepared for the gas station construction business on the Plaintiff’s land

2) On December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, etc., issued an order to supplement the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, etc. to consult with and coordinate the application for permission for connection of each road as stated in paragraph (1) on the ground that the two identical lanes overlap depending on the content of the application for permission for connection of roads (use) by the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, etc., but failed to comply with the order.

Article 6 (Joint Use of Road Sites) (1) The permission of this case is not exclusively or exclusively established for the permitted person, and thus, it is restricted or restricted by the general public.