1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court on this part is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) filed an order to submit written consent to the Plaintiff without any investigation or confirmation procedure after the Plaintiff’s petition was filed by nearby residents on April 1, 2013. The instant disposition based on the reason for approval for the establishment of a factory under the Industrial Cluster Development Act is unlawful. The Defendant’s demand for written consent is not a requirement for approval for the establishment of a factory under Article 36(2) subparag. 1 of the instant Guidelines, and the said provision cannot be the basis for the instant disposition. (2) The Defendant’s assertion submitted a civil petition for objection to the construction of a ready-mixed factory on the ground of environmental pollution, such as high-water, crop damage, water supply, soil contamination, etc., to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s demand the Plaintiff to supplement the factual basis as seen earlier by the Plaintiff’s inherent residents or the Plaintiff’s fundamental grounds for approval for the instant disposition cannot be seen as the Plaintiff’s new environmental disposition’s consent under Article 36(2) subparag. 1 of the instant Guidelines. 36.