1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of 157 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant land”), and the instant land is located within the development restriction zone.

B. On October 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in an act in a development restriction zone (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant, on December 20, 2017, issued a non-permission disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to the instant application on the grounds that “the land in a development restriction zone can only be used as a site where the goods are loaded in the development restriction zone, and the land in a site is created as a site where it is possible to be used without cutting or banking.” As such, cutting or banking of the land in a development restriction zone is not allowed as to the land subject to permission for piling up of the goods in the development restriction zone. The instant land is used as a road for about forty (40) years prior to the designation of the development restriction zone and is expected to occur at the time of permission for piling up the goods.”

C. The Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal on April 2, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that there is no concern for neighboring land to be the franchise due to the permission for the storage of goods against the land of this case, and even if there is such concern, only part of the land of this case should minimize the plaintiffs' damages by denying the storage of goods, and even if there is a slope to the land of this case, container walls are installed on the boundary of the land of this case, or the surface area of the land of this case is limited.