개발행위불허가통보처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Nos. 8, 12, 14, 25 of the first instance court's 7th 18-19 of the 7th 7th 7th 19 of the 7th 19th son's judgment, each statement of "Nos. 8, 12, 14, 25, 28 through 31 of the A, Nos. 5, 10 through 19, 24 of the 7th son's judgment, and Eul's request for delivery of documents to the first executive branch of the Daegu High Court" are as follows: "Nos. 8, 12, 14 through 25, 28 through 31 of the A, and Nos. 5, 10 through 19, 24 (including each number)", and the part of the
Therefore, based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is quoted.
2. In addition to the grounds alleged in the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was unlawful since it abused discretion by violating the principle of proportionality, in light of the following: (i) the Korea Rural Community Corporation, etc. is running a project even though the scale of the project is more than 10 to 20 times the instant facilities, and (ii) the decision of revocation of a non-permission to engage in development activities on the installation of facilities for solar power generation, which is being promoted by the Dolish-water reservoir; and (iii) the decision of revocation of a non-permission to engage in development activities on the installation of facilities for solar power generation, which is being promoted by the Dolish-water reservoir, was final and conclusive in the final appeal and the decision of revocation of a non-permission to engage in development activities on the installation of facilities for solar power generation; and (iv) there are no special circumstances that need not allow the installation of the instant facilities only in C reservoir; and (iii) the problem of disturbance of ecosystem that the Defendant is likely to take measures to supplement
However, the first instance court's reasoning is due and appropriate, and the evidence No. 2, No. 8-5, No. 6, and No. 8-5.