1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On October 29, 2012, the Defendant applied for an extension of the collection period of earth and rocks against the Plaintiff.

In accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance which partially accepted the judgment of the first instance shall be cited.

The parties' assertion that there is a difficulty in interpreting the supplementary notification as of January 17, 2012 is difficult to interpret the supplementary notification as of January 17, 2012. If it is difficult for the plaintiff to interpret the supplementary notification as of January 17, 2012 (hereinafter "the supplementary notification of this case") and properly interpret and implement it, the plaintiff asserts that if the supplementary notification of this case is interpreted to submit multiple access roads that can be used in the Quarrying without any ground, (i) the consent of the use of each land before K before K, L, and (ii) the consent of each land before the original city, (iii), the access area of which is 3,340 square meters increased to more than 2,07 square meters which is the area of consent for the use of the owner, (iii) the consent of the new owner of G land to use the land following the change from H to I, and each lot number of land hereinafter referred to as "the supplementary notification of this case").

On the other hand, the defendant argued that since the defendant prepared all documents stated in the instant supplementary notice to the effect that the contents are not unclear, it is not clear.

Judgment

The instant supplementary notification does not distinguish the priority order of the documents to be submitted, and it does not seem that the Plaintiff requires the submission of all the documents so as to be in accordance with the language and text.

However, unlike the details of access roads planned by the Plaintiff while applying for permission, the written consent to the use of K land and L land among the above documents is necessary to confirm the right to use the roads used as the existing access roads. However, the written consent to the use of land of 3,340 square meters of the area to be included in the access roads among D land is a document necessary for the construction of a new access road according to the details applied for permission by the Plaintiff.