1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

On July 25, 2012, the Defendant stated the Plaintiff’s representative director as C, not E, while notifying the Plaintiff of the hearing. Since C, other than the Plaintiff’s representative director, was present in the hearing procedure conducted on September 6, 2012, the prior hearing procedure is unlawful.

B. According to Article 27(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, the defendant shall cancel the approval of the business plan only if the person subject to the disposition changed the business plan or recommended to construct a factory for a fixed period of time and fails to comply with such recommendation. The defendant did not follow such procedures.

C. The Plaintiff’s delay in the construction of a factory is due to the difficulties in raising funds due to global financial crisis and the need was somewhat needed to resolve disputes over construction. This constitutes “a cause equivalent to a natural disaster or a cause for delaying construction for the improvement of the financial structure and the normalization of management” under the proviso of Article 13-5 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act and Article 19-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, the Defendant did not consider it.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff invested a large amount of funds to implement the instant project plan, the civil engineering work of the site of the instant project plan was more than 80 to 90%, and the extension and maintenance work of access roads to nearby villages was completed, etc., the instant disposition was much more likely to incur losses to the Plaintiff than the public interest to be achieved by the Defendant due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition was deviates from and abused discretion.

3. It is as stated in the relevant laws and regulations.

4...