전기사업불허가처분취소
1. The Defendant’s revocation of the provisional disposition on March 9, 2018 on the refusal of the electricity business that the Plaintiff rendered.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an electric utility license with the Defendant to install solar power facilities, the installation capacity of which is 99.90kWp, located within 22,00m2,00m2 (hereinafter “instant project site”) out of 130m279,711m2, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant application”).
B. On March 9, 2018, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that “the access road to the instant project site (hereinafter “the access road”) is not included in the existing road under Article 20(6) [Attachment Table 4] subparag. 1(e)(10) of the Enforcement Decree of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act since it was publicly announced as Eup/Myeon/Dong, but was not established; (b) thus, it goes against the standards for permission for mountainous district conversion under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, since it is impossible to realize a plan for installation of power generation facilities under the project plan, and thus, it goes against the criteria for permission under Article 7(5) subparag. 2 of the Electric Utility Act (which can be performed according to the plan)”
(1) 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 to 5's each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
(a)as shown in the relevant regulations;
B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant access road was established as a forest road and was publicly announced as to the recognition and alteration of the route of the Gun road, and thereafter publicly announced as the Eup/Myeon/Dong road. However, the access road of this case constitutes an existing road under Article 20(6) [Attachment 4] [Attachment 1] subparag. 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, and the passage of people and vehicles has already been frequent.
On the other hand, insofar as the ordinary people freely pass the access road of this case and do not take any measures to restrict it, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant consented externally or implicitly to the use of the access road of this case.
Therefore, the instant disposition, which differs from this premise, is taken.