1. On February 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) On February 15, 2016, the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retailing stores) in one parcel, both of which are located in the Gyeongdong-gun B and one parcel.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit, including a permit for development and farmland diversion (hereinafter “instant application”), to construct the first class neighborhood living facilities (retailing stores) on the first floor of 466.39 square meters above the building area on the 2,473 square meters among the instant land, other than B, Gyeongdong-gun, and one parcel (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).

B. On February 15, 2016, the Defendant rejected the instant application from the Plaintiff on the ground that “The instant land is included in the C Industrial Complex Development Plan, so it may incur property loss due to the removal of buildings, etc. when the construction of the building is in progress or after completion of the development of the industrial complex.” As such, the Defendant rejected the instant application on the ground that the instant

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 25, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 3 evidence, Eul's 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was formulated around September 2009 with a development plan for the C Industrial Complex, but seven years have passed thereafter, which is low possibility of realizing the industrial complex development plan, and in particular, it is difficult to expect that the land of this case is located at the change side of the planned area of the industrial complex, and thus, it is difficult to expect an end-user to appear. Thus, if a new building is constructed on the land of this case, there is little possibility of removal of the building, and it is difficult to consider losses caused by the removal of the building as a significant public interest. On the other hand, the plaintiff who obtained the approval of the use of the land of this case did not construct the land of this case for a long time due to the disposition of this case, and thereby,