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

A. For the purpose of constructing solar power infrastructure (hereinafter “instant project”) on the ground of 13,217 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) among five parcels, other than 13,217 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”), the Plaintiffs obtained permission from the Defendant to engage in the electric power generation business on March 13, 2017.

Pursuant to Article 8(1)2 of the Guidelines for Operation of Permission for Development Activities of Audio-gun (hereinafter “Audio-gun Operation Guidelines”) of the instant Disposition-based (hereinafter “Audio-gun Operation Guidelines”) that is located at least 50m to 260m from the boundary of a natural development area to the site where the site for partial application for permission goes against 300m (hereinafter “the ground for Disposition 1”), an original livestock shed and Domen are located at least 50m to 260m and the surrounding area of the project site are farmland, and there is concern that livestock products or crops may be damaged due to the increase of light reflect and surrounding temperature (hereinafter “the ground for Disposition 2”), as two households located in a detached house are used as residential life at a distance from 20m to 30m in the vicinity, there is concern about the damage of residential life and the

B. On October 25, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities for the instant project (hereinafter “instant application”). On November 20, 2017, the Gun Planning Committee rejected the deliberation on the instant application on the grounds that “the damage to the scenic view of neighboring farmland and the development of farmland is likely to occur, and the farmland chain erosion caused by the instant facilities is likely to occur,” and on December 27, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition denying the instant application against the Plaintiffs on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case is erroneous in the misconception of facts and abuse of discretionary power as follows.