1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 5th parallel 2 to 20th parallels are as follows:

The National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act").

Article 56(1)1 and 2, and Article 58(1)4 and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act, and Article 56(1) [Attachment Table 1-2] [Attachment Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act provides that permission to engage in development activities, such as installation of structures, shall be within the discretionary jurisdiction of the administrative agency, because there are many parts of the criteria for permission and prohibition requirements as indefinite concepts. Judicial review of such discretionary action is limited to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, in principle, taking into account the possibility of discretion as to public interest judgment of the administrative agency, and whether there is violation of the principle of mistake of facts and proportionality and equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du29205, Dec. 13, 2012). 3, 6, 9 through 12, and 3 through 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act, and whether the above application is unlawful in view of the overall purport of the national land planning and present decision.

However, at least 40 meters away from the port of application of this case.