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

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on May 11, 2016 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling ready-mixed. B. On May 5, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for establishment of a small and medium enterprise to the Defendant on May 17, 2016 in order to newly build and operate a ready-mixed factory (construction / structure size 474.4m, hereinafter referred to as “factory”) on the following grounds: 92m2, 126m2, 9,126m2, 120-2, 19,683m of Simsan-gun, a planned management area, for the Defendant: 20m2, 9,126m2, 281-4, 4,214m of Simsan-gun, a planned management area (hereinafter referred to as “instant project plan”): 40m of land attached to the instant application for the approval of a small and medium enterprise establishment (hereinafter referred to as “project plan”).

C. On August 4, 2016, the Defendant rejected the instant application from the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The area surrounding the application site of this case is where residents constantly appeal various damages due to freezing factories, compost factories, or the construction of a railroad station in the East Sea. The neighboring village (Amam1, 2) is located in 60 households and 120 residents living in a collective development area. The surrounding area of the project site is growing various agricultural products, etc. on livestock pens, natural mountain mountain, orchard, orchard, farmland, etc., and there is a concern about infringement of residents' lives, farmland damage due to noise, vibration, dust dust, wastewater can be discharged without permission, and it is inappropriate to ensure that there are many damage to agricultural products on farmland due to pollution of nearby livestock farms, and it is not suitable to Article 35 and Article 36 of the Integrated Guidelines on Development of Industrial Sites because the increase or decrease of the area of the project site of this case is likely to infringe on the residents' right to enter the 5th line surrounding the area of the project site of this case, which is being used as the entrance road of the 5th line, and it is likely to interfere with the residents' living environment of the large-level road.

A group civil petition was filed.

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on October 10, 2016.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Fictitious assertion on approval of the instant application

Article 33(2) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act provides that if the head of a Si/Gun/Gu fails to notify the approval of a business plan within 20 days after receipt of the application, the approval shall be deemed to have been granted on the day following the 20th anniversary of the receipt of the application. The Plaintiff filed the instant application to the Defendant on May 17, 2016, but the Defendant did not notify the approval within 20 days thereafter, the instant application was deemed to have been approved pursuant to the above legal provision. Nevertheless, the instant disposition rejecting the instant application was unlawful against Article 33(3) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise

C. Procedural defect assertion

Since the integrated guidelines for the development of industrial sites (hereinafter referred to as the "integrated guidelines of this case") are legal orders having external effects, the defendant, while rendering the dispositions of this case, clearly stated the detailed provisions of the above guidelines, which form the basis for the disposition, and without stating them, made the disposition of this case. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful because procedural defects violating Article 23 (Presentation of Reasons for Disposition) of the Administrative Procedures Act are illegal.

(c) abuse of discretionary authority;

① At the time of the instant application, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the installation of noise and vibration emission facilities, the report on the installation of air emission facilities, the report on the installation of scattering dust, etc., and the report on the installation of wastewater discharge facilities, and the Defendant’s opinion as appropriate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is expected to install noise-prevention facilities, such as soundproofing rooms, and install pollution prevention facilities, such as dust scattering control facilities and wastewater treatment facilities. ② In comparison with the number of large-scale vehicles carrying five lines for the implementation of railroad construction, even if the instant plant is newly constructed and a large vehicle is additionally operated, it cannot be said to hinder the livelihood of residents. The instant railroad construction is scheduled to be completed in 2018 and the instant factory is also scheduled to be operated in 2018, and the two dispositions will not be more than one year. ③ The Defendant, along with the instant application entry road of this case, submitted the instant application to the Plaintiff for permission to occupy and use the road to the extent that the Plaintiff did not have any duty to eliminate any harm caused by traffic accidents.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

4. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of each of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 32, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 8, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. The circumstances leading up to the disposition of this case after the application of this case

1) On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant application to the Defendant, and the Defendant, on May 19, 2016, held a written meeting of the Working-Level Comprehensive Deliberation Committee pursuant to Article 10 of the Guidelines for Integrated Business Management (amended by the Small and Medium Business Administration Notice No. 2017-36, Jul. 19, 2017) regarding the approval of the establishment plan.

2) On June 1, 2016, the Defendant confirmed the full-time deliberation unit of the Gun Planning Committee pursuant to Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), as a result of a review by the Working-Level Comprehensive Deliberation Committee, and notified the Plaintiff of the materials for deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee on June 8, 2016.

3) On June 13, 2016, the Defendant did not submit the data to the Plaintiff. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) determined that the date for deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee pursuant to Article 59 of the National Land Planning Act and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, “the date for the submission of data for deliberation, and the date for the extension of treatment: July 14, 2016; (b) submitted the data for deliberation by the Young-gu Gun Planning Committee to the Defendant on June 22, 2016; (c) requested the deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee on the same day; and (d) notified the Plaintiff on July 14, 2016 that the period for processing civil petitions was extended to August 11, 2016; and (e) notified the Defendant on July 15, 2016.

6) The Defendant rendered the instant disposition on August 4, 2016. The current status, etc. of the instant application site

1) The instant application is a planned management area among the specific use areas under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and a quasi-permanent conservation mountainous district.

2) The instant application place is located in the left-hand scam of the Gun, Do, 5, Do, Do, Do, Do, in the direction of a forest road, and is adjacent to a livestock farm, which is a local river, due to the construction of a road. The surrounding areas of the application place is located in a large number of farmland, such as forest land, field, field, field, and orchard (see attached Table 1). The livestock industry is a Class 2 river running along the sea through the ethic principle, Dol, Dol, and livestock industry, the starting point of the ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic Do.

3) Gun roads are used as main roads for the entrance and exit of the factory of this case. The above roads have a large size of the main road for the purpose of the entrance and exit of the factory of this case. The residents are not on the side side of the roads, and most of the primary road width is about 3 meters. Meanwhile, according to the traffic volume survey data of 5 line traffic volume in 2016 Gun roads, the daily traffic volume of 07:00 to 19:000, and 19:000. According to the Plaintiff’s limited business plan, the monthly production volume of ready-mixed is about 4,00m, raw materials ( sand and aggregate) is about 6,00m per month, and the daily traffic volume of large-scale vehicles anticipated to be operated when the factory of this case is operated is about 88 vehicles.

4) At present, construction of the Section 6 Construction Works from the port of East Sea to the port of East Sea (the construction period: from November 24, 2014 to November 22, 2018) in the vicinity of the instant application site is proceeding, and a large truck arising therefrom enters and leaves this Gun via five lines. From August 2017, a tunnel construction project is completed, the number of trucks passing along the vicinity of the instant application site is at least 150 per day, and the average of 44 vehicles per day are expected to be at least 44.

5) At the livestock industry where the place of the instant application is located, there are 27 underground water pipes in total (agricultural, living, industrial, etc.). According to the business plan submitted by the Plaintiff, at the level of 60 tons per day, groundwater will be developed and used as industrial water.

6) The factory of this case is subject to permission for and reporting on the installation of air emission facilities as stipulated in the Clean Air Conservation Act. The plaintiff installed a dust-proof cover and sprinkler facilities in preparation for the scattering dust generation, and it was difficult for the plaintiff to install and operate transportation vehicles, covers and three-wheeled facilities, to suppress dust dust, and to use a container bet with a cover installed at the time of transfer.

In addition, the instant plant is subject to permission for and reporting on the installation of wastewater discharge facilities as prescribed by the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act. The Plaintiff was unable to prepare a plan to reuse all wastewater of 20 square meters per day, which is expected to be 1,000 tons per day and 100 square meters per day, through recycling facilities.

7) On the basis of the instant application site, approximately 1.2 km village was formed at a point 1.2 km away from the north east, and approximately 1.2 km village was formed towards west, and according to the details compiled by the Defendant, approximately 120 residents of approximately 60 households in the said mar 1 and 2 mar village (see attached Form 2).

8) On June 3, 2016, the head of the livestock breeding area submitted to the Defendant a counter-signing signature data to local residents on the local residents’ opinions regarding the construction of the instant factory, along with the opinion that “The risk of traffic accidents is increased due to the increase of the operation of large vehicles, concerns over environmental pollution due to scattering dust, and opposite to the increase of noise and road subsidence, etc.” (hereinafter “the instant factory construction”). Moreover, on July 11, 2016, the residents of the 201amambia submitted to the Defendant a counter-signing document of the instant factory construction.

9) The Plaintiff submitted a project plan to connect the forest road connected to the application site by the method of building a road that enters and departs from the application site of this case. However, on May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for permission to occupy and use a part of the land, and changed the plan to extend the entrance of the access site to a 30-meter range. Meanwhile, there is no waiting line for left-hand turn to turn to the left-hand turn in the direction of the application site of this case through the 5 line at the time of the application site of this case. As a result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee on July 15, 2016, the Military Planning Committee passed a resolution on the following matters: (a) as a result of deliberation on development activities following the construction of the factory of this case on July 15, 2016, thoroughly reduced the impact of the surrounding environment at the time of development activities; (b) required to prevent various environmental pollution, such as dust or noise; and (c) required to minimize the residents’ original civil petition.

5. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Determination as to whether approval of the instant application is deemed to have been granted

1) Where a founder of a small and medium enterprise establishes a business plan and applies for approval within 20 days from the date of receipt of the application, the approving authority shall notify the approval of the business plan within 20 days (Article 33(3) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act). Article 2 Subparag. 1(a)1 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Petitions Treatment Act”) defines the “civil petition for authorization, etc. in accordance with the specific requirements prescribed by the Act” as “civil petition for legal services to which the above Act applies.” Since the Civil Procedure Act applies as civil petition under the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, the calculation of the above 20 days shall be calculated on a “day” basis, including the first day of the application in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, and the period shall be determined within the scope of 10 days from the date of receipt of the application by the relevant administrative agency, which shall not be included in the calculation of the period for treatment by no later than 10 days (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du3719, supra).

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the application of this case was deemed to have been approved pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, in light of the health stand, the aforementioned evidence, and the following circumstances revealed by the above facts. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) Where the instant application is approved, it shall be deemed that permission for development activities under Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act has been obtained pursuant to Article 35(1)9 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, and the Defendant, as a complex civil petition, shall comply with the procedures under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act to determine whether to approve the complex civil petition. Furthermore, since the instant application is a planned control area, the area subject to change of land form and quality is 9,290 meters, the Defendant should undergo deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee to grant permission for development activities following the instant application pursuant to Article 59(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Articles 57(1)1-2 and 5

(2) On June 8, 2016, before the expiration of 20 days from May 17, 2016, on which the Plaintiff filed the instant application, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement documents for deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee. On June 22, 2016, the Defendant received data from the Plaintiff for deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee. On the same day, the Gun Planning Committee requested deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee, and received the result of the deliberation from the Gun Planning Committee on July 21, 2016. Therefore, from June 8, 2016 to June 6, 2016 and 22, Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures Act, and from June 22, 2016 to July 21, 2016, it shall not be included in each processing period pursuant to Article 11 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(3) Around July 17, 2016, the foregoing period is not included, but the 20th day from May 17, 2016 to July 28, 2016 (i.e., 15 days from May 17, 2016 to June 7, 2016 + 5 days from July 22, 2016 to July 28, 2016). The Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s consent on July 13, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of the processing period to consult with the competent authority, extended the processing period to August 11, 2016, and the Defendant, as a matter of course, did not extend the processing period to 10 days from July 29, 2016 to 20 days from July 20, 2016 to 330 days from the date of the extension of the processing period. As such, the Defendant’s notification period was entirely invalidated within the 16th day of the instant processing period.

(4) Therefore, once the Defendant rendered the instant disposition on August 4, 2016, which was before August 11, 2016, it is reasonable to view that the instant disposition was conducted within the processing period under Article 33(3) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, Article 19 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. Determination as to the existence of procedural defects

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall present the basis and reason for the disposition to the parties when rendering a disposition. In general, in cases where the parties to the disposition rejecting authorization, permission, etc., by specifying the basis and reason therefor, have presented considerable reasons to the extent that the parties can know the grounds therefor, the relevant disposition cannot be deemed an unlawful disposition, even if the grounds and reason for the relevant disposition are not specified in a specific provision and content (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du8912, May 17, 2002).

2) Determination

With respect to the instant case, the Defendant stated not only the provisions on the legal basis of the disposition that is not in compliance with Articles 35 and 36 (Standards for Selection of Individual Factory Sites) of the Integrated Guidelines, but also specified the reasons that are not in compliance with the relevant provisions. The Plaintiff appears to have sufficiently known that the instant application was not in compliance with any detailed provisions of the Integrated Guidelines, comprehensively taking into account the provisions on the basis that the Defendant performed and the reasons that were not in compliance with the relevant provisions. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. Determination as to the deviation or abuse of discretionary power is without merit.

1) Relevant legal principles

A) According to Article 35(1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, if a project plan is approved pursuant to Article 33(1) of the same Act and consultation with the head of another administrative agency regarding approval for factory construction under Article 13(1) of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act and permission for development activities under Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the approval for factory establishment and permission for development activities, etc. are deemed obtained. Meanwhile, according to Article 58(1)4 and (3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Articles 51 and 56(1) and [Attachment Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it is stipulated that the conditions of permission shall be that the development activities such as construction of buildings and construction of structures may not cause air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, noise, vibration, vibration, vibration, dust, etc. in the relevant area

Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, the approval of a project plan under the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act has the nature of permission for development activities, such as construction of buildings and construction of structures under Article 56 (1) of the National Land Planning Act. As such, an administrative agency that received an application for approval of a project plan may deny the application for approval of a project plan on the grounds that the application did not meet the requirements for development activities. Meanwhile, permission for development activities is provided as an indefinite concept and thus the administrative agency is granted discretion in determining whether the requirements for prohibition are met. Accordingly, approval of a project plan that entails permission under the National Land Planning Act constitutes discretionary act. In addition, judicial review of discretionary act is subject to review of whether the act in question deviates or abused from or abused from the discretion of the administrative agency without drawing an independent conclusion, taking into account room for determining public interests based on the discretion of the administrative agency (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6181, Jul. 14, 2005).

In particular, when examining whether there is deviation or abuse of discretionary authority in relation to permission of an administrative agency for development activities that are likely to damage or pollute the environment, the determination should be made with careful consideration of the legislative purport of various regulations on the utilization status and balance of rights and interests and the protection of environmental rights among interested parties who have conflicting interests with those of the relevant region, such as living environment, etc. Therefore, the determination and judgment should be made by stipulating that ① all citizens have the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment, ③ the State and citizens have the right to live in an environment, as constitutional fundamental rights, and at the same time, impose the duty of the State and citizens to endeavor to preserve the environment. ② The Framework Act on Environmental Conservation sets forth the rights and duties of the citizens who are to make efforts for environmental preservation and the duties of the State and local governments, and the business entities, and specifically setting the obligations of the State and local governments on the basis of the constitutional ideology of environmental rights (Articles 1, 4, 5, and 6), and that the State, local governments and citizens have to consider environmental preservation priority when performing all acts using the environment (Article 22).

B) The approval of a business plan for the establishment of a small and medium enterprise under Article 33(1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act is a so-called beneficial administrative disposition with the effect of granting rights or interests to the other party, and the requirements of administrative disposition are not stipulated in the law, unless the requirements of administrative disposition are stipulated in the law. Thus, in light of the purport of the system allowing the founders of a small and medium enterprise to prepare a business plan and obtain approval from the mayor, etc. for the purpose of preventing infringement of public interests protected by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes under each subparagraph of Article 35(1) of the same Act in the process of establishing a business, while promoting the establishment of a small and medium enterprise through business start-up or simplification of business start-up procedures, the Mayor, etc. shall be deemed to have refused the approval if the contents of the applied administrative act are deemed to infringe on the public interest (see, e.g.,

C) Under Articles 5 and 40 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, the purpose of the integrated guidelines of this case is to stipulate detailed standards for the designation of sites for factory establishment and the development of sites pursuant to Articles 5 and 40 of the Industrial Sites Act (hereinafter “Industrial Sites Act”) is to supplement the contents of laws and regulations in accordance with delegation by the Industrial Sites Act, which is the basis thereof, and to have the effect of externally binding regulations in combination with the Industrial Sites Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du2274, Sept. 9, 2003; 2002Du4716, May 28, 2004). Article 35(1) of the integrated guidelines of this case provides that when the head of a Si/Gun receives an application for the designation of an individual factory location, he/she shall comprehensively examine and determine the following matters, "the impact on environmental conservation and preservation of cultural heritage" under subparagraph 3, "the impact on the plan to treat wastes and measures for traffic demand" under subparagraph 5, "the impact on the existing water pollution of water quality of 3" in each area.

On the other hand, whether individual factory locations meet the requirements of the above Integrated Guidelines or not shall be determined at the discretion of the administrative agency, and the above legal principles shall be applied to judicial review of the illegality prior to the examination of deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

2) Determination on the instant case

A) In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s instant disposition based on Articles 35 and 36(2) of the instant Consolidated Guidelines, which is a statutory order, cannot be deemed to have been mistaken or abused the discretion in light of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Within 1.2 kilometers from the boundary of the instant application site, Maam1 and Maam2 is located respectively, and the said village is deemed a collective development area. Therefore, the instant application constitutes “area adjacent to the existing collective development pursuant to Article 36(2)1 of the instant integrated guidelines.” Therefore, the Defendant may refuse to grant approval for the designation of an individual factory location in accordance with the aforementioned integrated guidelines.

(2) As seen earlier, the discretionary determination by an administrative agency on concerns over the occurrence of environmental damage, such as noise, dust, and pollution caused by wastewater, should be widely respected unless there are circumstances such as significantly lacking rationality or clearly contrary to the principle of equity or proportionality in comparison with other benefits and values. In particular, the administrative agency’s permission for development activities likely to cause environmental damage or pollution should also be taken into account, and the balance of interests between interested parties, such as the actual use of land and the living environment of the residents in the relevant area and the interests contrary to the specific local circumstances such as the living environment, and rights and interests of the residents. In this case, it is inevitable for the Plaintiff to take into account that the relevant facilities are not installed and operated properly, and that there is a concern over environmental damage if the relevant facilities are not installed and operated. In particular, there is a need to take into account the position in the area where the application in this case is filed, and that there is a need to take into account the situation where there is considerable concern that there is considerable damage to the environment, such as forest and field surrounding the application area, and farmland and there are no concerns or concerns over environmental damage.

(3) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there is no problem of environmental damage caused by the discharge of wastewater by installing the wastewater treatment facilities as the latest facilities. However, according to the business plan or the report on the installation of wastewater discharge facilities submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff formulated a plan to fully reuse the whole quantity of wastewater generated by the process of manufacturing ready-mixed, the detailed transportation equipment, and the operation of the wheeled facilities. However, even if water recovered through the recycling facilities is used again for slaughter for the purpose of blocking vehicle washing and scattering dust, the substantial amount of water would remain in the site of the factory, etc., and it cannot be ruled out the possibility that wastewater generated in the notified plant flows into nearby rivers or farmland as it is or cement dust, thereby adversely affecting the damage of crops as well as pollution of the quality of nearby livestock.

(4) The Plaintiff submitted a business plan to prevent fugitive dust by installing a dust-proof cover and sprinkler facility in the process of storage, transport, manufacturing, transportation, etc. of ready-mixed ingredients.

However, despite the above preventive facilities that the plaintiff intends to install because dust is highly likely to be scattered in various stages, such as cement, sand, and gravel, the main ingredients of which are cement, sand, and gravel, or the process of manufacturing them by transferring them to a mixture device, and the process of passing through large trucks transporting raw materials and ready-mixeds, etc., it is not possible to exclude the possibility that dust dust will occur, and further if the above preventive facilities are not operated properly, environmental damage is expected to occur to nearby farmland, river, etc. due to dust scattering.

(5) In light of the current state of groundwater pipelines near the instant application site, etc., if the Plaintiff continues to use more than 60 tons of groundwater per day for the operation of the factory, it is likely that the Plaintiff will grow up with groundwater, thereby hindering local residents’ agricultural activities and causing damage to crops. Such reasons also fall under the review items of Article 35 subparagraph 8 of the instant Integrated Guidelines.

(6) Article 35(1)5 of the Consolidated Guidelines also provides for measures to attract traffic demand. In light of the current status of vehicles, such as large trucks of 5 lines, which will be used as the entrance and exit of the factory of this case, the daily traffic volume of Gun-based trucks for ready-mixed Transport, which the Plaintiff is expected to operate the factory of this case, the current status of the operation of large trucks related to railroad construction currently in progress in the vicinity of the application site of this case, the Gun-do 5 line width and the current status of access roads to the site of this case from 5 lines, and the method of access to the site of this case from 5 lines, etc., it cannot be deemed that there is a concern that the living environment of neighboring residents might be infringed due to the increase of traffic volume of large trucks, etc., and there is no reasonable ground for such risk at all.

B) As seen earlier, the business plan approval plan also has the nature of permission for development activities under the National Land Planning Act, and thus, the administrative agency upon receipt of the application may deny the application for approval of the business plan on the ground that the application did not meet the requirements for development activities. In this case, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition by deeming that the application for approval of the business plan did not meet the requirements for development activities. Furthermore, as seen below, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’

(1) According to the National Land Planning Act and subordinate statutes, development activities include the construction of buildings and construction of structures, etc., that are not likely to cause air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, noise, vibration, dust, etc. in the relevant areas and surrounding areas, and that there is no possibility that environmental pollution, ecosystem destruction, damage, etc. may occur.

(2) According to the facts and judgment seen earlier, where the factory of this case is established, there is no possibility that air pollution, water pollution, noise, vibration dust, etc. may occur in the place and surrounding areas of the application of this case.

(3) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the fact that the Young-gun Gun Planning Committee deliberated upon the instant development activities by the Young-gun Gun Planning Committee. However, the Defendant, an administrative agency having the authority to dispose of the instant development activities, merely refers to the result of deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee, and does not legally bind its opinion, and the Defendant may determine that the instant application did not meet the requirements for development activities in light of various circumstances, and that it did not violate the principle of trust protection.

C) In full view of the foregoing determination, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not justified, since it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was erroneous or abused the discretion against the principle of proportionality and equality.

6. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-ran

Judge Park Sang-hoon

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.