1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the implementation of the “Summary of Request for Residents’ Voting” listed in the attached Table 1 against the Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 1) The Defendant’s establishment of the Residents Support Fund following the establishment of the Defendant’s waste disposal facilities (i.e., the establishment of the Defendant’s comprehensive waste disposal facilities (hereinafter “the instant waste disposal facilities”) and the Act on the Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Assistance, etc. to their Environs on August 12, 2005 (hereinafter “Waste Facilities Promotion Act”).

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined and publicly announced the location of the instant waste disposal facility and 48 parcels, and on September 23, 2005, the lower court determined and publicly announced the establishment plan for waste disposal facilities on September 23, 2005. (2) In order to support the surrounding areas affected environmentally due to the installation and operation of the instant waste disposal facility, the Defendant constituted the Resident Support Consultative Body on April 13, 2007, including the representative of neighboring residents, and created KRW 4 billion

3) On December 13, 2007, the Resident Support Consultative Body held a meeting to notify the Defendant of KRW 2 billion out of the Resident Support Fund as the business fund for the Resident Support Consultative Body for Residents, and the remainder of KRW 2 billion in B from the development fund B, after the resolution was passed to provide each assistance to the Circuit. The Defendant, upon the result of the deliberation of the Fund Operation Deliberative Council on December 31, 2007, paid KRW 2 billion to the Resident Support Consultative Body for Residents on January 3, 2008, and KRW 2 billion to the Circuit on January 3, 2008, respectively. (B) The 92 of the residents who reside in the Myeon of Sejong-si, Gangwon-do, the Plaintiff’s representative certificate, and the refusal of the Defendant, were not fairly executed since November 2012, recommended the Resident Support Committee for the re-distribution and re-distribution of each of the funds in this case by asserting the distribution of each of the funds in this case.

2. The chairman of the Resident Support Fund Distribution Management Committee.