1. On October 11, 2018, the Defendant’s revocation of the provisional injunction against the Plaintiff’s development activities.

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

1. Area for which an application is filed for installation of 4,163 square meters, weight: 20.68t, structure of a structure: Development of a new and renewable energy site for the purpose of development activities of 9,979 square meters in an area for which an application is filed for change of the quality of land of 6,204 square meters is filed;

A. On May 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities, the content of which is the construction of a structure and alteration of the form and quality of a structure as follows, with respect to the size of 9,979 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter referred to as “the construction of the above structure and alteration of the form and quality of the above structure”. B.

On October 11, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to refuse the instant development activities against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The grounds incurred by the Defendant in rendering the instant disposition are ① The instant land is adjacent to the housing site, and is inconsistent with the surrounding conditions and the environment such as the infringement of the residential environment of local residents due to the installation of solar energy (hereinafter “instant ground”); ② The instant land may interfere with the safe driving of drivers adjacent to national highways C (hereinafter “Second ground”); and is inappropriate under Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The grounds that the defendant's assertion of the plaintiff rejected the application for the development act of this case are based on mistake of facts as follows.

In addition, in light of permission to engage in development activities on solar power infrastructure adjacent to the instant land, the instant disposition is against equity, and the disadvantages the Plaintiff suffered due to the instant disposition are much larger than that of the public interest, such as the infringement of the residential environment of residents.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked inasmuch as it is unlawful in deviation from or abuse of discretionary power.

1 With respect to the 1st reason, solar power generation facilities are not harmful, and no more than 10 units are authorized within 100 meters of the land of this case.

at least 10 units.