2. The remaining part of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of a business plan for the establishment of a small and medium enterprise pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, etc., to establish a 15,410 square meters out of 22,401 square meters of forest land ( Address 1 omitted), 22,401 square meters, prior to the merger, and 1,385 square meters of forest land ( Address 2 omitted), 7,334 square meters on the ground of waste 7,385 square meters of forest land prior to the merger, for the establishment of a saw manufacturing and manufacturing factory using waste wood on the ground of 1,385 square meters of forest land.

B. On October 2, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to grant permission for a project plan deemed as permission for a mountainous district conversion, etc. (hereinafter “instant project plan”).

C. Since then, the Defendant confirmed that a violation occurred, such as the collapse of tin, etc. while the Plaintiff performed the construction work of piling up stone, as otherwise stipulated in the approval of the instant project plan, and the Plaintiff’s restoration to original state, the prevention of disasters, and the promotion of implementation of the matters agreed upon. As the Plaintiff failed to implement this, the Defendant, on January 8, 2016, rendered a notice that the matters regarding the conversion of mountainous district agreement are revoked to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant notice”).

D. On March 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition revoking the approval of the instant project plan on the ground that the revocation of permission, etc. to change the form and quality of land (the revocation of permission for conversion) was impossible to establish a factory (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) is a resident living around the Plaintiff’s project site.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 11, 14, 15 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of permission for mountainous district conversion among the lawsuit in this case is legitimate

Even in cases where permission for a project plan is deemed granted under Articles 33(1) and 35(1)6 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, the defendant shall consult with the Minister of the Korea Forest Service, etc. on whether the approval for a project plan of this case is appropriate for the management of Mountainous Districts Act, and if such procedures are completed, the approval for a project plan becomes effective as a matter of course pursuant to the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and the permission for a mountainous district conversion deemed to be effective as a matter of course beyond the legal provisions. Thus, even if the defendant made a constructive mountainous district conversion that does not exist separately from the external appearance, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that becomes the object of appeal, because it is merely a notification of the concept of the permission for a mountainous district conversion that had not existed originally, and as long as the defendant revoked the approval for a project plan of this case after making the identity of this case, the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, who raised a lawsuit related to the cancellation of the disposition of this case, and it cannot be seen that there is a practical benefit to dispute against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for revocation of permission for mountainous district conversion among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful for the aforementioned reasons.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Defect in the procedure

In order to revoke the approval of this project plan under Article 27 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, the relevant disposition shall be taken only when the relevant person subject to the disposition changes the project plan or recommends him/her to construct a factory and fails to comply with it. However, the Defendant immediately revoked the approval of the project plan without the above recommendation. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the provisions or procedures under the above Enforcement Decree.

2) Illegal grounds for disposition

The Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful in light of the following reasons, etc.

Article 37(1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act lists the grounds, such as the revocation of approval for a project plan, and the grounds for revocation of permission for a mountainous district conversion do not constitute grounds for revocation of approval for a project plan as prescribed by the above provision. In addition, the defendant made the instant notice to the effect that the consultation with regard to deemed permission for a mountainous district conversion is revoked, and as regards deemed permission for a mountainous district conversion, it cannot be revoked even if it is a separate order for suspension of a mountainous district conversion under Article 20(2) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act. Thus, the instant notice picture, the premise for the instant disposition,

In the instant disposition, the Defendant presented Article 13-5 subparagraph 2 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Act”) under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. This cannot be a ground provision for cancellation of approval of a project plan. Even if the approval of factory establishment, etc. is deemed granted according to approval of a project plan of the instant case, the above provision cannot be applied as a matter of course in relation to “approval of factory establishment, etc. deemed granted.”

(iii) deviation from and abuse of discretionary power;

Since the Plaintiff suffered damage compared to the public interest that the Defendant achieved, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary power.

B. Determination

1) Whether procedural defects are procedural defects

Article 27(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act provides that "To approve a business plan and revoke permission to construct a factory pursuant to Article 37(1) of the Act, the relevant disposition shall be taken only when the person subject to the disposition changes the business plan or recommends him/her to construct a factory, and fails to comply with it," although the defendant's disposition of this case only on the ground that the ground that the conditions of the approval of the business plan of this case were not fulfilled by the plaintiff, as seen earlier, there are grounds for cancellation (cancellation) in the approval of the business plan of this case, and it is not based on Article 37(1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, even if the defendant did not make a recommendation under the above Enforcement Decree, the disposition of this case is not unlawful. Accordingly, the plaintiff'

2) Whether the grounds for the disposition are lawful

A) According to Articles 33(1) and 35(1)6 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, a founder may engage in a business after preparing a business plan as prescribed by Presidential Decree and obtaining approval from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu. When approving the above business plan, it is deemed that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu has consulted with the head of another administrative agency regarding permission to divert a mountainous district under Article 14 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act.

According to Article 14(1) and (2) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, any person who intends to convert a mountainous district shall obtain permission for a specified purpose, and where the head of a related administrative agency requests consultation with the Minister of the Korea Forest Service, etc. in order to take administrative measures deemed necessary for permission to divert a mountainous district under other Acts, he/she shall submit documents necessary to review whether the person meets the standards for permission to divert a mountainous district. According to Article 20(1)2 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the Minister of the Korea Forest Service, etc. may revoke permission to divert a mountainous district where a person who has obtained

In addition, according to Article 13(1) and (2)3 of the Industrial Cluster Development Act and Article 19(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person who intends to build a factory shall obtain approval from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu. The person who has obtained approval of a business plan under Article 33(1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act shall be deemed to have obtained approval for the establishment, etc. of a factory under Article 13(1) of the Industrial Cluster Development Act. According to Article 13-2(1)2 of the Industrial Cluster Development Act, when granting approval for the establishment, etc. of a factory, matters about which the head of the Si/Gun/Gu has consulted with the head of the relevant administrative agency with regard to the permission for conversion of a mountainous district under Article 14 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act for the site of the relevant factory, and according to Article 13-5(2) of the Industrial Cluster Development Act, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu may revoke the approval for the establishment, etc. of a factory where it is deemed difficult to implement.

In light of the above relevant laws and regulations, legislative structure, purport, etc., if the defendant intends to approve a business plan pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, he/she shall examine whether it meets the standards for permission for conversion of a mountainous district and the standards for approval for establishment of a factory, etc., which is deemed to have obtained permission, and if appropriate, he/she may approve a business plan only if it meets the standards. If conditions are determined in advance in consideration of the above standards related to permission for conversion of a mountainous district or approval for establishment of a factory, it shall be deemed that the approval for a business plan may be revoked

Meanwhile, even though there was no particular defect at the time of the disposition, and there was no separate legal ground for the withdrawal of the disposition after the disposition, where there was a change of circumstances that became unnecessary to continue the original disposition, or where there was a need for the important public interest, the disposition agency which has performed an administrative act may withdraw it by a separate administrative act which would lose its effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004, etc.).

B) In light of the purport and legal principles of the aforementioned relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the following circumstances acknowledged that the purport of the entire pleadings was added to health stand, Gap’s 1 through 5, 8, 11 through 16, and 18 Eul’s 1 through 12, Eul’s 2 through 11, and 14 through 25 with respect to the instant case, namely, ① the defendant is ordered to take measures necessary for disaster prevention or restoration pursuant to Article 37 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act in a written approval for a project plan of this case, namely, (i) the defendant fails to comply with the requirements of the approval for a project plan of this case, and (ii) fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the approval for a project plan of this case, including the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the aforementioned conditions of the approval for a project plan of this case, and thus, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the aforementioned conditions of the approval for a project plan of this case, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the conditions of the approval for a project plan of this case.

Meanwhile, the disposition of this case (No. 15) states that it was impossible to establish a factory due to cancellation of permission to change the form and quality of land (the cancellation of permission to divert mountainous district). However, the cancellation of permission to divert mountainous district (consultation) and the approval of the project plan of this case as the plaintiff did not implement an order to restore land and prevent disasters under Article 37 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and the approval of the project plan of this case is revoked accordingly. The defendant's assertion in the lawsuit of this case that the plaintiff failed to implement the conditions stipulated in the approval of the project plan of this case as the plaintiff failed to implement the above order under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and therefore, the approval of the project plan of this case is revoked on the ground that the reason that the defendant used as the ground for the disposition of this case or the reason that the defendant asserted in the

Therefore, for the above reasons, the defendant's ground for disposition of this case is legitimate and that part of the plaintiff's assertion that differs from this premise is without merit.

3) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused

A disposition that approves a business plan under Article 33(1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act is a so-called beneficial administrative disposition that entails rights or benefits to the other party. A withdrawal of a beneficial administrative act is an administrative act that ex post loses its validity despite the absence of any particular defect at the time of the disposition. Thus, it is allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no change in circumstances where it is unnecessary to continue the original administrative act or where the withdrawal right is reserved due to the negligence of the administrative act, etc., or where there is a need for significant public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11954, Apr. 29, 2005). If the disposition causes enormous disadvantage to the other party than the necessity for public interest, it is unlawful as it goes beyond the limits of discretionary power (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004).

However, in the approval of the project plan of this case, if the conditions for the approval of the project plan of this case are not met, the right to withdrawal may be cancelled (e.g., cancellation) and the right to withdrawal was reserved on the ground that it would have violated the conditions set forth in the approval of the project plan of this case due to the plaintiff's failure to implement the restoration order and the order to prevent disasters after the execution of construction work differently as set forth in the approval of the project plan of this case, and the restoration order and the order to prevent disasters was not properly implemented. Accordingly, there is a significant degree of infringement on the public interest. In light of the above circumstances known by the evidence and the overall purport of arguments, including the fact that the defendant granted the plaintiff a reasonable period prior to the disposition of this case, while giving the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the violation, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant seems to have been significantly significant to justify the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff due to the disposition of this case. Therefore, this part of the disposition of this case is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of permission for mountainous district conversion among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the remaining part of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Yang Sung-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)