1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the solar power generation business from the Defendant to operate solar power generation business with the content of operating solar power generation business on the aggregate of 24,059 square meters in the area of five parcels, including Kimcheon-si B forest and field, (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities with the Defendant to install solar power generation facilities in the instant application site.

C. On March 21, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on March 21, 2018 that he/she would return the above application for permission for the following reasons:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Subcommittee: The application of the instant review opinion that was rejected is located within 300 meters from the main roads (proking roads with the central line). As such, permission for development activities in Kimcheon-si is not granted pursuant to Article 4(1)1 of the Guidelines for Operation of Permission for Development Activities in Kimcheon-si (No. 4 of the Rules of Kimcheon-si, 2017).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. We examine the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void due to the revocation, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006). According to the evidence No. 30, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant disposition was revoked ex officio on July 5, 2019, where the lawsuit is pending, and thus, the instant lawsuit became unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is unlawful and dismissed, and the decision of the court of first instance is so unfair that it has different conclusions, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, but the total cost of the lawsuit of this case is borne by the defendant under Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.