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

A. On November 24, 2017, the Plaintiffs obtained permission for each electric power generation business for solar power generation from the Defendant. On December 3, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application for permission to engage in development activities, including permission for conversion of mountainous districts, with the Defendant to install solar power generation facilities on the 24,816 square meters and 442 square meters before JJ (hereinafter collectively collectively referred to as “instant application site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On November 20, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the refusal of the instant application pursuant to Article 57 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), Article 56 [Attachment 1-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and Article 27 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, on the grounds that “the rejection of the instant application as a result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee” (hereinafter “National

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Grounds for rejection by the above Urban Planning Committee are as follows:

The ground for disposition is inappropriate to the site of a power plant for the preservation of forests and the maintenance of the landscape with surrounding areas (hereinafter “grounds for disposition 1”). The gradient is excessive to at least 15 and natural ecology is also inappropriate to the site of a power plant as Class 2 (7%) and Class 3 (91.71%) for vegetation conservation (hereinafter “grounds for disposition 2”). The time for receipt falls under an area where the Ministry of Environment’s Guidelines for Consultation on Environmental Assessment of Land Dial Power Generation Projects of the Ministry of Environment (hereinafter “instant Guidelines”) on December 3, 2018 (hereinafter “instant Guidelines”) (hereinafter “grounds for disposition 3”). [Grounds for recognition”) The fact that no dispute exists, Gap, 1, 4, and 5 evidence, and the purport of all pleadings as a whole.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion for the following reasons.

With regard to the ground for the disposition No. 1, there is no protected forest or worth preserving forests in the application site of this case, and there is no building, river, etc. around the application site of this case, and the landscape is damaged by the installation of solar-powered facilities of this case.