1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the defendant's addition of the following Paragraph 2 with regard to the newly asserted by this court, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s alleged solar power plant installer divided the instant application into several parcels to avoid the consultation procedure on small environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and prior consultation procedure on prior examination of factors influencing disasters under the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act, and sold it to the Plaintiffs, and thereafter filed the instant application with the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the instant application is an evasion of law

B. 1) In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or modify other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the initial disposition are recognized as identical to the basic facts. The existence of the factual identity of the basic facts here is determined depending on whether the grounds for the disposition are identical in the basic social facts, based on the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du8827, Dec. 11, 2003; 2012Du13412, Dec. 24, 2014). As seen earlier, the Defendant’s grounds for each disposition of the instant case do not have any fact that the Plaintiff, in order to avoid a small-scale consultation procedure for the environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and prior consultation procedure for the prior examination of factors influencing disasters under the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation at issue cannot be deemed identical to the grounds for the initial disposition of this case.