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 June 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for the creation of sites for Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, resting restaurants, Council members) and Class II neighborhood living facilities (offices) with respect to the land in Suwon-si, Suwon-si B, C, and D (hereinafter “instant application site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On August 30, 2018, the Defendant presented advice to the Suwon City Urban Planning Committee on the instant application, and notified the Plaintiff of the results of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee on August 30, 2018, and the results of deliberation are as follows: “The relevant area requires the prevention of disorderly urbanization and the preservation thereof, and from the long-term perspective, it is reasonable to consider the purpose and characteristics of designation of the relevant area for use, the connection with infrastructure (water supply and sewerage, road, etc.), the smooth flow of transit traffic, the impact on the display of functions of surrounding farmland, and the streetside landscape according to the location of buildings, etc., to prevent the increase in social costs, such as economic feasibility, etc. at the time of establishing the urban planning in the future.” Therefore, it is reasonable to present the opinions on non-permission of development activities before establishing the detailed plan.

C. On September 3, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of denying the instant application to the Plaintiff prior to the completion of the establishment of a comprehensive detailed plan for the relevant region according to the result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including additional numbers), Eul’s Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion is not subject to deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee, the Defendant refused the instant application on the grounds of the result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee, and the instant disposition is proportional and proportional.