logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.07.09 2019구합215
전기(태양광발전)사업허가반려(거부)처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. On January 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for electric utility business license with the Defendant to install a solar power plant on the facility capacity of 359.28 km on the area of the facility capacity on the land where the instant application is filed (hereinafter “instant application site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On January 28, 2019, the Defendant requested on January 28, 2019, the Plaintiff to supplement documents regarding “one of the building management ledger or building permit or building report, revision of business plan, supplementation of land-related documents, supplementation of fund-related documents, supplementation of identification of the applicant, attachment of documents which are major new and renewable energy facilities.”

C. On February 7, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted only a written proposal to the Defendant stating that “The request for document supplement is illegal or unreasonable, and thus re-examines it again,” and some documents (a modified business plan, land use consent, certificate of personal seal impression, and certificate of deposit balance).

On February 11, 2019, the Defendant sent a reply to the Plaintiff on February 11, 2019 to the effect that “the land subject to the project as a result of the field verification does not have any building on the land subject to the project, and thus, the permission for temporary use of farmland for other purposes is not in conformity with the standard for examination of the permission for the electricity generation business.” The Defendant again requested the Plaintiff to supplement documents on “one of the building management ledger or building permission or building report, details of equity capital, details

E. On March 12, 2019, the Defendant rejected the instant application against the Plaintiff for the following reasons:

(1) The purpose of the “permission for temporary use of farmland for other purposes” acquired pursuant to Article 32(1)9 of the Farmland Act and Article 29(7)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is not to acquire for solar power generation projects, but to stipulate the conditions of temporary use permission under paragraph (4) of the same Article.

(2) A roof of a building under Article 29 (7) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act.

arrow