The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1.(a)

Permission for development activities under Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act") shall be prohibited.

Since there are many parts of the criteria for permission as indefinite concepts, administrative agencies are given discretion to determine whether they meet the requirements standards.

In addition, the acceptance of a building report accompanied by an alteration of the form and quality of land within a specific specific use area prescribed by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is subject to the legal fiction of authorization under Article 14(2), Article 11(5), and Article 11(6) of the Building Act, and also has the nature of a building report and a permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. As such, if a building report deemed to have obtained permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du14954 Decided January 20, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Du50188 Decided October 26, 201, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Du50188).

Article 56(1) [Attached Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act pursuant to delegation of Article 58(1) and (3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides for “whether the actual use status of surrounding areas or the land use plan, the height of buildings, gradient of land, status of trees, water drainage, water drainage, drainage of wetlands, etc. in harmony with the surrounding environment or landscape,” “whether the installation of infrastructure following the relevant development activities or the plan for securing the site required therefor is appropriate,” and “whether the surrounding traffic flow is impeded” as the criteria for permission for development activities.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following circumstances. A.

The plaintiff, who runs the construction waste interim disposal business, etc., intends to transfer the place of business to D and one parcel outside of Ansan-si (hereinafter referred to as the "instant E-dong site") to the defendant, after consultation and review with the related department.