1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the branch number, if it is not indicated specially; hereinafter the same shall apply), and there is no counter-proof.

The Plaintiffs, along with U on November 10, 2016, filed a license for solar power generation projects with U and obtained a license from the Defendant on January 31, 2017.

(The trade name of the Plaintiff is: (a) Plaintiff AK; (b) Plaintiff B; (c) Plaintiff C; (d) Plaintiff D; (b) Plaintiff E; (b) Plaintiff F; (c) Plaintiff G; Q’s “R; (h) Plaintiff H; and (v) Plaintiff JT.

The terms and conditions of permission for solar power generation projects include a comprehensive civil petition and review opinion to the effect that development activities (construction of structures and change of form and quality) under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) are subject to permission and detailed standards for permission for development activities are in conformity with the guidelines for operating permission for development activities prescribed in Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

C. On January 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs jointly with U, and jointly with the Defendant, filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for installation of solar power facilities (hereinafter “instant application”) with a size of 17,802 square meters on the ground, 17,615 square meters, X roads 1,354 square meters, and Y roads 654 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”). D. The Plaintiffs filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for installation of solar power facilities (hereinafter “instant application”).

On April 4, 2018, after deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee on March 21, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application against the Plaintiffs and U.S. (Evidence A No. 4; hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the following reasons.

1) Results of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee: 2) For reasons of non-permission, Article 58 and 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act are applied.