2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff A obtained a license for the electric generation business for solar power generation from the Defendant with the facility capacity of 98.49kW with respect to the Jeonju Group C, and Plaintiff B obtained a license for the electric generation business for solar power generation from the Defendant on November 16, 2017 with respect to the Jeonju-gun, the facility capacity of which is 60.30kW from the Defendant on November 16, 2017.

B. On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff A filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities for the installation of solar power infrastructure with respect to the size of 721 square meters in Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun, and the size of 1,537 square meters prior to C.

C. On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff B stated that the date of application for the instant case was “ February 9, 2018.” However, according to Plaintiff B’s statement as “A evidence 1-2, the date of application is recognized as February 12, 2018.”

The Defendant filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for the installation of solar power infrastructure with respect to the building of solar power infrastructure in the field of D, C, and E, Jeonbuk-gun E, Jeonbuk-gun (hereinafter referred to as “instant application site”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”) d. of each Plaintiffs’ application for permission for development activities.

On April 11, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to allow development activities on the grounds that “the location of solar power infrastructure is negative due to the deterioration with the surrounding area as a village area is located in the vicinity of the project site” to the Plaintiffs.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including each number, the purport of the whole pleadings);

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) Pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Guidelines for the Operation of Permission for Development Activities of Haju-gun (hereinafter "Guidelines"), the guidelines of this case do not apply to the plaintiffs' application of this case, and the defendant's disposition of this case was unfair on the ground that the settlement area is located near the place of the application of this case, and the defendant's disposition of this case was rendered on the ground that the settlement area is located in the neighboring area is located. (2) North Korea's F, G