1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance and the evidence additionally adopted and examined by this court are justified in the findings of fact in the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification and addition of some contents as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

No. 10 of the first instance judgment’s No. 10 of the first instance judgment’s “Nos. 1 and 2” shall be amended to “Nos. 8 through 11 of the first instance judgment (number omitted), and Nos. 1 and 2 of the second instance judgment.”

The following details shall be added between 3rd and 19th and 20th:

As the Enforcement Decree of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 29329 on December 7, 2018, the Plaintiff strengthened its standard that the installation of solar power facilities is subject to the temporary use permission, not permission, and the average slope level of the mountainous district is below 15∑ and below that it is possible to temporarily use the mountainous district. Thus, the instant disposition was made before the enforcement of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act. However, as seen earlier, the instant disposition is unlawful as it applied the standards of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act. However, as seen earlier, the instant disposition is not permitted in light of the current status of the instant application site and the details of the permission for development activities. As such, the instant application site is not subject to permission for development activities on the grounds that there is damage to the surrounding natural environment, green area reduction, and soil outflow, and the average slope level of the application site is not acceptable, since it is merely a single material to determine the existence of the above disposition ground. The Plaintiff’s foregoing assertion is added the following details between subparagraphs 14 and 15.