1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting development activities against the Plaintiffs on March 12, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 30, 2017, in order to install solar power generation facilities on the ground of 31,240 square meters of forests and fields E-1,240 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), Plaintiff A, Plaintiff C, and D, respectively, obtained permission for the electric power generation business (hereinafter “instant electric power generation business”) with the capacity of equipment capacity of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D, from October 30, 2017 to October 29, 2020, respectively, with the period of preparation for the business from October 30, 2017 to October 29, 2020.

B. On December 14, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to install a structure to install solar power plant (2,196kW) on the ground of 28,316 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant application site”) among the instant land, and filed an application for permission to engage in development of change of form and quality of land.

C. On March 12, 2018, following deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of non-permission of permission for development activities (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

In accordance with Article 57 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 27 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, the plaintiffs are informed of the results of deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee, such as attaching a civil petition for permission to engage in development activities for Jeon-Nam-gun E received by the plaintiffs.

- - In the form and quality of a superior forest with a high conservation value and with a major tourist destination in the vicinity of a local highway (Fho line) with a major tourist destination of which landscape is important due to an adjacent area, the fact that there is no dispute over the inadequate disposal plan due to a steep slope for prevention of soil and sand outflow, the entries in Gap's 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole,

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The defendant only presented a comprehensive reason while rendering the instant disposition, and did not disclose the statutes that form the basis of the disposition.

This case is in violation of Article 23 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides for the presentation of grounds and reasons for an administrative disposition.