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 March 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit to newly build animal and plant-related facilities of a size of 1,710.67 square meters on the ground of 2,979 square meters (hereinafter “the instant site”). (b) On November 14, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant application was rejected on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”). In accordance with Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “the National Land Planning Act”) and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the determination of urban planning pursuant to the provisions of Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which could impair the first plan for the development of superior farmland and its neighboring highways, and thus, would hinder the development of the natural environment and the first plan for the development of the natural environment and its neighboring cities, which would hinder the development of the national land and the first plan for the conservation of the natural environment.

b. 【Ground for Recognition】 without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power is unlawful as it misleads the misunderstanding of facts or violates the principle of equality and proportionality as follows.

A) As a result of the Defendant’s consultation with the relevant department, the construction of the instant stable does not conflict with the farmland law, and does not constitute a clearance zone where new construction of a building is restricted pursuant to Article 40(3) of the Act or a cultural heritage protection zone under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.

In addition, the application of this case does not conflict with the guidelines for permission for development activities.

Therefore, the image of the stable of this case, the erosion of superior farmland, the obstruction of landscape in the vicinity of the highway, and the tourism city.