1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting development activities on December 10, 2015 to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for development activities (hereinafter “instant application”) to create Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) and Class II neighborhood living facilities (manufacturing establishments) sites (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. On December 10, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant permission for development activities on the following grounds to the Plaintiff:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). Notification of non-permission for development activities (Evidence A 4): Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and attached Table 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

(a) Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and subparagraph 1(a) and (d) of attached Table 1-2 (Standards for Permission of Development Acts) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act do not need to preserve the original form in accordance with the historical, cultural, and intellectual value, the purpose of national defense, etc. of the surrounding areas, and shall be harmonized with the surrounding environment or landscape, such as the actual status of land use or

(b)the site in question is very important to preserve the land located near Cr. D. which has a historical and cultural value because it is designated as a traditional temple and has its historical and cultural value, and the land utilization plan is also not consistent with the surrounding environment or landscape;

On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 11, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 3, 4 and 5-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 is located at a distance of not less than 200 meters away from C companies, and is not designated as a historic and cultural environment preservation area or traditional temple preservation area as prescribed by the Cultural Heritage Protection Act or the Act on the Preservation and Support of Traditional Buddhist Temples. Although the application site of this case is located at the external range of C company's D.