1. The plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

2. Development activities performed by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on April 23, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs obtained each permission for solar power generation business (facilities capacity of 99kw, supply voltage 380V) from the Defendant, and on March 6, 2018, for the purpose of creating a site for the said solar power plant, the Plaintiff Company: (a) on March 6, 2018, for the purpose of creating a site for the said solar power plant, 2,722 square meters; (b) Plaintiff B, for the purpose of 2,57 square meters out of 17,157 square meters of D forest land 17,157 square meters (=1,845 square meters of land) [268 square meters of land (road)]; (c) E, 15,486 square meters of forest and field; (d) 2,92 square meters of land to be used as a road among 15,486 square meters of forest and field; and (e) 1,845 square meters of land in each power plant.

) As to 1,072 square meters (road), the Defendant filed an application for permission for development activities with respect to the Defendant.

B. Accordingly, following deliberation by the former Gun Planning Committee on April 23, 2018, the Defendant rejected the said application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The site for the power plant is located within 300 meters from the statutory road and residential densely concentrated area, and the landscape damage cannot be deemed as not yet occurred because it was shielding the mountainous district, etc., and thus, it failed to meet the standards for permission for the power plant installation under Article 19(4) of the former Gun Planning Ordinance.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 4, 6 through 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Article 19(4) of the former Gun Planning Ordinance, which is the basis of the instant disposition, is null and void beyond the bounds of delegation by superior statutes, such as the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

Therefore, the defect in the disposition of this case based thereon is significant and apparent and null and void.

B. If the preliminary claim is made, even if the defects of the instant disposition are not significant and clear, the instant disposition is abused and abused discretion, and thus should be revoked accordingly.

3. Attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Determination

A. Whether Article 19(4) of the former Ordinance on the Gun Planning is invalid is a specific case.