1. On November 14, 2018, the Defendant’s revocation of a provisional disposition of denial of development activities against the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant for installation of solar power infrastructure on the ground of 7,415 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On November 2018, the Defendant held the Yangyang-gun Gun Planning Committee to deliberate on the instant application. The Defendant rendered a disposition of denying the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) according to the result of deliberation that “The Plaintiff did not comply with the procedures for consultation with the residents” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) according to the following: (a) it is difficult to harmonize the surrounding environment or landscape due to the installation of structures, such as solar panels, etc. around the application site; (b) it is likely that development activities may cause direct damage to nearby village residents, such as changes in topography and natural landscape, damage to crops, noise and vibration, etc. due to large-scale banking operations; and (c) it is anticipated that environmental pollution may occur in the relevant area and its surrounding areas;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), entry of Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is illegal as it deviates from and abused discretionary power. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination of permission for development activities is subject to permission standards and prohibition

The issue of whether the requirements are met because there are many parts prescribed as indefinite concepts is within the area of discretionary judgment of administrative agencies.

Therefore, in principle, the judicial review of this case is subject to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretion, considering the possibility of discretion of the administrative agency on the public interest judgment of the administrative agency, and whether there is a violation of the principle of mistake of facts and proportionality and equality shall be the criteria for the judgment, and the discretion shall be discretion