1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application for permission to engage in development activities to create a building site for power facilities with respect to each of the following areas among the area of F forest land 27,683 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”).

Plaintiff B, Plaintiff B, 1,795㎡ 2, Plaintiff C, 4,150㎡ 4,000,000,000, in the case of Plaintiff A, a new Cheong-dong, in the case of Plaintiff B, 1,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 18,000 square meters, for Plaintiff E, 5,595㎡ 4,595 square meters, and 18,053 square meters.

B. On June 7, 2018, after deliberation by the Urban Planning and Development Subcommittee, the Defendant rendered a provisional disposition of denying development activities against the Plaintiffs on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1) Rejection of the result of deliberation by the Urban Planning and Development Subcommittee (1) 1) 3) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4 (3) 4) 4 (3) 4) 4 (4) 1) 1 (3) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1) 1 (2) 12 and 14 (2) 14 (2) 2) 3 (3) 2 (3) 2) 12 and 14 (4) 2.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiffs alleged that the instant disposition was a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination of permission for development activities is subject to permission standards and prohibition

The issue of whether the requirements are met because there are many parts prescribed as indefinite concepts is within the area of discretionary judgment of administrative agencies.

Therefore, in principle, the judicial review of the administrative agency is limited to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretion, taking into account the possibility of discretion on the public interest judgment of the administrative agency, and whether there is a violation of the principle of mistake of facts and proportionality and equality, etc., and the person who contests the validity of the administrative act in cases of deviation or abuse of discretion bears the burden of proof.