1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff A made a report on the construction of a temporary building (2,235 square meters, 4 Dong/1 floor) on the ground (2,235 square meters, and 4 / 1st floor) on the land in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-do (the duration from March 2017 to February 14, 2020) to the Defendant, and the said report was accepted on March 3, 2017. On August 2, 2017, Plaintiff A operated a waste treatment business using the said temporary building under the trade name called “D (hereinafter “instant first company”).

B. On February 21, 2017, E (the Plaintiff’s birth) made a report on the construction of a temporary building (2,522 square meters, six dong/1 floor) on the ground of the “F (2,522 square meters, and 6-dong/1 floor) in Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-gun (the period of existence) (the foregoing report was accepted on April 5, 2017). On September 26, 2017, after obtaining a comprehensive waste recycling business license, the waste disposal business using the said temporary building was conducted in the name of G (hereinafter “instant second enterprise”) with the name of the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s mother). After that, the name of the permission for the said comprehensive waste recycling business was changed to the Plaintiff B (the Plaintiff’s mother).

C. The plaintiffs are the defendants around February 2020.

On February 17, 2020, the Defendant reported the extension of the retention period of each temporary building on the port (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant temporary building”). On February 17, 2020, the Defendant returned the instant temporary building to the Plaintiffs on the grounds that the instant temporary building is used as a warehouse for storing wastes instead of a string shed.

On July 7, 2020, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiffs’ comprehensive waste disposal business permission (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant permission”) pursuant to Article 27(1)1 of the Wastes Control Act (in the case of obtaining permission by unlawful means) on the ground that “the instant report on the extension of the retention period of the instant temporary building was rejected, and the Plaintiffs used the said temporary building for waste disposal facilities other than livestock raising facilities for its main purpose.”

grounds for recognition.