개발행위허가신청불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff was granted a license for the electric generation business for solar power generation business to the Plaintiff by setting the business place as B, C, 2,517 square meters from the Defendant, and the business place as B, C, 2,517 square meters at the port.
B. Application for the first permission for development activities and non-permission disposition 1) The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant on September 2016, and the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).
(2) After consultation with the relevant departments, the Defendant held a Posisi-si Urban Planning Committee on the ground that the project feasibility and efficiency due to the problem in the form of the project area (illegal type), the likelihood of damage to neighboring land (farmland and graveyard), and the risk of damage to existing village (E) landscape are not consistent with the surrounding landscape.
On October 14, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of development activities in accordance with the foregoing review result, and the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff, but was dismissed on November 18, 2016.
C. The Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in the secondary development activities and the instant non-permission disposition 1) on December 23, 2016, with the partial reduction of the business area on December 23, 2016, and the sum of 2,517 square meters in B, 907 square meters and C, 1,610 square meters in total (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).
(2) The application for permission to engage in development activities on the ground to install solar power facilities (a fixed solar strings of the steel structure, and a total of 1,254 square meters) (hereinafter “instant application”).
2) On January 31, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice of non-permission to engage in development activities on the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant land does not conform to the prime landscape, after deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee.
3. The plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but on March 27, 2017.