1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting development activities against the Plaintiff on September 30, 2015 is revoked.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Jeonnam-do Governor to engage in the solar power generation business on the land outside C, the facility capacity of which is 397.98kw on the ground, and around July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities with the Defendant to install solar power generation facilities (2260.9mm2) on the ground (hereinafter “instant application site”) on the aggregate of 7,210m2 (hereinafter “instant application site”).

In light of the standards for permission for development activities under Article 58(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 56(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act as a planned control area under Article 36 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), where “the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant case with the Defendant on September 30, 2015, there is a need to preserve farmland in accordance with the historical, cultural, and native values, and there is a concern over damaging the surrounding natural scenery and aesthetic development due to development activities. The height, form, and color of the application are in harmony with the basic landscape plan of the YA, and is inconsistent with the chemical net landscape plan, and the operation guidelines for the permission for development activities for the landscape damage and the chemical net military is inconsistent with the results of deliberation by the Committee (development division).”

Since the act was rejected in violation of this section, I reject the act of development.

“The instant application was rejected on the ground of this,”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

2) The Defendant did not specifically state the grounds for disposition, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion of the legitimacy of the disposition of the entire pleadings and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and whether the disposition of the entire pleadings is legitimate.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is in violation of Article 23 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

The operation guidelines of this case are invalid.