1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the form and quality of land for the purpose of installing a liquefied petroleum gas charging station for automobiles with respect to 3,000 square meters among 3,116 square meters of forest C, Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) owned within a development restriction zone B (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On November 24, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a reply to the effect that the instant land is an area where the installation of a liquefied petroleum gas filling station for automobiles in a development-restricted zone is not possible, because LPG charging stations are placed within 100 meters adjacent thereto, pursuant to Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development-Restricted Zones (hereinafter “Development-restricted Zones Act”).

(hereinafter “instant reply”). C.

On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant reply with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on March 13, 2017, the said commission rendered a ruling to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant land had five gas charging stations (4 points, 3NG 1 points within a radius of 200 meters from the instant land). Of them, CNG charging stations are located within a development-restricted zone of 200 meters from the instant land, and one LPG charging station is located within a general zone of 100 meters away from the instant land. The instant land is a conservation zone of 1 non-top, and thus it is not possible to establish an arrangement plan for installation of gas stations, etc. within a development-restricted zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Although there was an application for permission to change the form and quality of the instant land in the name of the Defendant’s main defense, a third party, other than the Plaintiff, in the process of confirming the omission of personal information and lack of accompanying documents.