1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around 2000, H (the trade name of H was changed to “I”) had installed factories and ancillary facilities (hereinafter collectively referred to as “existing factories”) on the 11,213m2 located in the planning management area under Article 6 subparag. 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and operated a principal and metal manufacturing business.

B. On June 26, 2017, an intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for approval to change the existing factory type to a ready-mixed manufacturing business.

(hereinafter referred to as “convenor factory”) an existing factory to be changed to the ready-mixed manufacturing business.

On July 6, 2017, pursuant to Article 13(1) of the former Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 14993, Oct. 31, 2017) and Article 19(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28409, Oct. 31, 2017), the Defendant issued an approval disposition as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The details of approval for division registration are as follows: (a) 2,677.31 square meters (Article: 1:1,80.07 square meters/units: 1,497 square meters/units) 2,67.31 square meters (Article: 1,80.07 square meters/units: 1,497.24 square meters); (b) non-high name change; (c) change of business type; (d) change of building area in the main type and gold-type manufacturing business, other than main type and gold-type manufacturing business; and (e) 6,927.15 square meters (Article 5,74.97 square meters; 1,82.18 square meters; 1,497.24 square meters); and (e) change of building area in the name of the company owner; (e) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition;

2. Judgment on the main defense of the defendant and the intervenor in the lawsuit of the plaintiff E

A. The Plaintiff E filed the instant lawsuit from September 2017 to September 90, 2017, where the existence of the instant disposition was known. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it exceeds the period for filing the lawsuit. 2) The Plaintiff E does not reside in the vicinity of the existing factory and does not cause or are likely to cause an environmental interest infringement due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is rendered.