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 October 26, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained permission for solar power generation business from the Defendant on the Dosan-si B, C, 7,422 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”)

B. On November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for preliminary deliberation with the Gun Urban Planning Committee for the installation of solar power infrastructure (hereinafter “instant facilities”) on the ground of the instant application site with the Gun Urban Planning Committee, and the Gun Urban Planning Committee of the Gunsan had deliberated on December 7, 2017, but rejected it.

C. On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities for the installation of the instant facilities (hereinafter “instant application”).

On March 16, 2018, Gunsan-si rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application to the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Pursuant to Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the instant application is rejected for the following reasons, subject to deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee for development activities: - The natural landscape and aesthetic damage around neighboring villages and farmland, concerns over the erosion of farmland where agricultural production infrastructure is installed, and the need for conservation [based] facts without any dispute; 1, 2, and 8 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply]; 1 through 3; and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The application form and village in this case are shielding forests, and the additional shielding forest is planned to be installed. Thus, even if solar energy facilities are installed, it does not interfere with natural landscape in the village or surrounding farmland. In addition, the Defendant’s refusal of the application form in this case is unlawful as it deviates from discretion and abused, even though it is not likely to undermine the fear of farmland erosion or the preservation of farmland, such as the supply of water facilities are not properly equipped, and there is no possibility that it would be detrimental to the preservation of farmland erosion. 2) The application form in this case is against the law.