개발행위불허가처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1 through 6, 8 through 17 (including the number of branches if it is not indicated specially; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.
On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff obtained a license for an electricity generation business concerning solar power generation projects by setting the trade name from the Defendant as the 6,582 square meters prior to C at permanent residence, the installation place, and the installation capacity as the 397.44km and the installation area as 2,412.41 square meters.
B. On May 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities of 5,90 square meters out of C’s permanent land to install solar power infrastructure under the said project.
C. Upon the Defendant’s request for deliberation, the Urban Planning Committee deliberated on the Plaintiff’s application on August 22, 2018, and passed a resolution on “Re-deliberation” for the following reasons, and the Defendant, on August 28, 2018, notified the Plaintiff of the results of the deliberation and demanded supplementation of the application.
Submission of materials related to the consultation with respect to nearby residents and farmland owners, including the strengthening of the basic depth of the site (not less than the dynamic depth of the Sin-si) and the strengthening of the basic depth of the city-type (not less than the dynamic level in
D. On September 19, 2018, upon the Plaintiff’s submission of supplementary data and the Defendant’s request for reexamination, the Permanent Resident Planning Committee deliberated on the Plaintiff’s second application on September 19, 2018, and passed a resolution on “Re-deliberation” on the ground that it is necessary to supplement related data for consultation with neighboring residents. On October 5, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the said deliberation result and demanded supplementation
E. Upon the Plaintiff’s submission of supplementary materials and the Defendant’s request for reexamination, the Permanent Resident Planning Committee passed a resolution on November 21, 2018 on the ground that it is necessary to supplement and submit the consultation materials for the residents of neighboring land and father-Dong (hereinafter “resident consultation”), and the Defendant’s decision on December 5, 2018 on the Plaintiff.