개발행위불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Plaintiff asserted in this court while filing an appeal, are not significantly different from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion even if
Therefore, the reasoning for this court’s reasoning is as follows. This court’s reasoning is modified as to the instant case’s. This court’s argument emphasized by the Plaintiff as to the assertion presented by the Plaintiff is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for an additional determination as to the assertion presented by the Plaintiff as set forth in paragraph (3) below. As such, this court’s reasoning is cited in accordance
2. Amendment to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the effect that “forest diversion consultation” in Sections 2, 12, and 13 shall be deemed to be “Mountainous Districts Consultation”, and amendment to the part 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance to “No. 17, 2017.” and “No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance to “I would have caused” “No. 4.......... There is the provision of this case that prohibits installation of solar power facilities within 100 meters from the village” in Sections 9, 8, and 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance to “No. 15, 2018” (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s amendment to “B military operation guidelines” in the judgment of the court of first instance to the effect that “No. 300 meters from the densely concentrated residential area at the time,” and “No. 15, 2000 meters from residential area” (see, 15, 16, etc.).108).1.1.
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful for the following reasons.
1. The provision of this case concerning the restriction on separation distance, which the defendant serves as the ground for disposition, is either enacted without the delegation of law or its delegation.