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

A. On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in an act of changing the form and quality of land in order to install and operate a secondhand shop on the ground of Seosung City B, C1,513 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. In relation to the above application for permission, the Defendant requested a written deliberation to the chemical City Urban Planning Committee, and on July 10, 2013, the Urban Planning Committee rendered a decision to reject the location and plan of the physical project on the ground that the location and plan of the physical project is improper, considering the restriction on the use of vehicles and land in the form of vertical length, unreasonable planning due to the use of slope land, and detrimental to the residential environment in the surrounding residential areas required to the forest.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the above application for permission and on March 17, 2014, and the Defendant above.

An application for permission for development activities as mentioned in the same paragraph was filed again (hereinafter “instant application for permission”), and the defendant on April 3, 2014.

The application for permission of this case was rejected for reasons such as Paragraph (1).

(hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s non-permission disposition in this case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion, since there is no obstacle to permission for development of the land of this case, and there is no concern about harm to the surrounding environment due to the above permission.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. As to permission to change the form and quality of land under Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the summary of such prohibition

If the case is defined as an indefinite concept, the outline of prohibition is prohibited.

The discretion is given to administrative agencies to determine whether it is a case.

In addition, in the judicial review of discretionary actions, the court shall consider the possibility of determining the public interest based on the discretion of the administrative agency.