beta
(영문) 대전고등법원 (청주) 2018.11.28 2018누778

개발행위불허가처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Reasons

1. The contents asserted by the plaintiff in the first instance court are not identical to the allegations of the first instance court that the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion by the plaintiff's rejection of each permission for development activities for the installation of solar power infrastructure of the plaintiff and the Selection Gap (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.") is likely to cause damage to the ecosystem in the relevant area and its surrounding area, such as the cutting of green belt axis and the alteration of drainage, etc., and that there is no ground for the disposition of "constition of natural landscape and landscape damage, etc. in the surrounding area, or there is an abuse of discretionary power from the non-permission disposition." However, even if the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court is examined, the first instance court's

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the modification or addition as set forth in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court cites this case including summary language pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A corrected or added portion;

A. On the 2nd page 5-6 of the first instance judgment, the part to be amended was amended to “six parcels (E, F, G, H, I, and J) other than six parcels (E, H, I, and J, and the said C forest was divided into C, K, and L land on August 17, 2016; hereinafter “instant site”).

In the second and second sides of the judgment of the first instance, "29,153 square meters" shall be changed to "29,513 square meters" and "23,938 square meters" to "27,242 square meters", each of which shall be changed to "29,513 square meters" and "27,242 square meters".

Part 6-7 of the first instance judgment, "The land of this case is adjacent to the orchard and is located adjacent to water supply," is amended to "the land of this case is located adjacent to water supply and is located adjacent to water supply, and is located adjacent to the road and river."

(b).