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 reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of the Plaintiff as to the assertion emphasized by the court of first instance as referred to in paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. The plaintiff asserts that the non-permission of the second application of this case on the ground that the application documents are inappropriate without demanding the plaintiff to supplement them is in violation of Article 22 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter “Civil Petitions Treatment Act”), Articles 24 and 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, and thus illegal.

According to the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, if there is any defect in the civil petition documents, the head of the administrative agency shall request the civil petitioner to supplement the defect. The defect in the object of supplement must not only be a case where it is possible to supplement it, but also a case where the content is a formal procedural requirement or where there is any defect in the substantive requirements.

(1) According to the above facts, the Defendant rejected the second application of this case by taking into account the following grounds: (a) when installing solar power generation facilities in the instant application form, the natural environment is considerably damaged and its preservation value is lost, its surrounding landscape is damaged, and the possibility of disaster is likely to occur; and (b) the content thereof is not a case where supplement is not possible; and (c) the content thereof is not a case where the Plaintiff’s simple mistake or temporary circumstance is due to defects in the substantive requirements.

Even if the Plaintiff supplemented the application documents, it appears that the conclusion of the instant disposition would not have any influence on the conclusion thereof, and thus, the instant disposition is inappropriate without requiring the Defendant to supplement the application documents to the Plaintiff.