1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application with the Defendant for approval for the establishment of a new factory on two parcels, including 24 U.S. and 24 U.S., U.S., U.S. (hereinafter “instant factory”); and (b) on June 30, 2014, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff to establish a new factory with the following content pursuant to Article 13 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Act”).

Matters to be approved: Details of approval for the establishment of a factory - Area of 26,408 square meters: - Area of a road: 933 square meters: Area of a building: 8,887.2 square meters (production facilities 8,400 square meters and appurtenant facilities 487.2 square meters): Matters and conditions to be treated as having been approved for the establishment of a new factory: Permission for conversion of mountainous district

B. While constructing the instant factory, the Plaintiff issued a corrective order to the effect that on March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff would take the same measures as the original content of the permission, unlike the original content of the permission (the method of piling up retaining retaining walls with a double embankment) (hereinafter “instant modified construction”).

C. Around May 2015, when the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Defendant’s corrective order, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval to change the establishment of a factory (hereinafter “instant application”). On June 12, 2015, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1) Where the Plaintiff’s application for approval for the new construction of a factory under Article 13(1) of the Industrial Cluster Act is filed for the en bloc legal fiction after consultation with other Acts and subordinate statutes (hereinafter “Management of Mountainous Districts Act and National Land Planning and Utilization Act”) pursuant to Article 13-2 of the same Act, and the site for which the application is filed is located, on June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff violated permission for development activities during the construction of a factory by obtaining approval for the new construction of a factory, and the order for correction is issued.