1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance should explain are as follows: (a) the reasons why the plaintiff is required to refer to the argument that the court of the first instance emphasizes in particular or re-convened is identical to the reasons of the first instance judgment, except for the addition under the following: (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The procedure for designating a stone collection complex, which is in violation of Article 39(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, is commenced upon the application for designation of a stone collection complex. The meaning of medicinal language used by Nonparty Company (hereinafter) is the same as that of the first instance judgment. Since the Enforcement Decree of the Mountainous Districts Management Act was not applied until April 20, 2009, and the application for designation of a stone collection complex was made on September 3, 2009, the amended Enforcement Decree shall apply to the application for designation of a stone collection complex. According to the amended Enforcement Decree, the area of the instant stone collection complex should be excluded and the area of incidental facilities, such as a product processing place, should be excluded. Since the defect is significant and obvious, the instant disposition is null and void since the housing and factory residing in the Plaintiff and its family members were in violation of Article 39(3)3 and 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mountainous Districts Management Act is not subject to environmental impact assessment within 300 meters of this case.

3) The non-party company asserting that Article 39(3)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act is a violation of Article 39(3)4 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, and obtained approval for the establishment of a factory and approval for the modification thereof for eight parcels, such as V, and this constitutes “restricted matters under other Acts and subordinate statutes” and thus, the instant disposition violated detailed criteria for designation of a stone collection complex.