1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s provisional disposition against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to construct Class II neighborhood living facilities (office, warehouse, and 1st floor) on the ground (hereinafter “the instant orchard”) where the instant orchard and forest are combined, and 2261m2 (hereinafter “the instant forest”).

B. On December 3, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant a construction permit (new construction) on the ground that the instant application site, which is a natural green belt on the land use plan, was not permitted pursuant to the standards under Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Directive No. 524, May 8, 2015; hereinafter “instant operational guidelines”) and the former Guidelines for Operation of Permission for Development (amended by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Directive No. 524, May 8, 2015; hereinafter “instant operational guidelines”) on the ground that permission for development was not granted in accordance with the standards under Article 3-2-4(1) and (3), 3-3-3(4)(4), and 3-4-3(2)(4).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on December 26, 2014, but was dismissed on February 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is merely a field of land category which is low in the field of orchard and forest. The application of this case is already cut down due to the construction of national highways and highways adjoining to the application of this case, and the preservation value or functions as forest are already lost due to the plaintiff's plan. It may be more harmonized with surrounding environment or landscape. The defendant permitted the construction of warehouse facilities in the application of this case around November 2007.