1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs obtained permission for solar power generation projects from the Defendant on May 4, 2017 by setting the facility capacity of 99kW from the 6,166.8 cubic meters (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On May 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities for the installation of solar power infrastructure on the ground of the instant application site (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of denying the instant application against the Plaintiffs on August 4, 2017 following deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee for Kim Jong-si on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The application for development activities for solar power infrastructure and site creation on the application site of this case constitutes excellent farmland under Article 58 of the National Land Planning Act and Article 56 [Attachment Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, is rejected as a result of deliberation by the Kim Jong-si Urban Planning Committee. [Grounds for recognition] Facts that there is no dispute, Gap's entries in subparagraphs 1 through 4, 9, 10, and Eul's 3 through 5 (including branch numbers if there are numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) A deviation from discretion and abuse of the application of this case is currently in a state of low-fluence and lack of necessary agricultural infrastructure, and thus cannot be seen as good farmland. However, the defendant's rejection of the application of this case is illegal as it deviates from discretion and abuse, and it is illegal. 2) The defendant violated the principle of trust protection was granted permission to solar power generation business to the plaintiffs, and decided to impose farmland preservation charges on the plaintiffs through consultation with the plaintiffs and farmland diversion permission.

The Plaintiffs, in trust, pay farmland preservation charges and obtain the consent of the residents, but the Defendant’s refusal of the instant application violates the principle of trust protection.

B. Attached statutes 1 of the relevant statutes