1. On February 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) On February 15, 2016, the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retailing stores) in one parcel, both of which are located in the Gyeongdong-gun B and one parcel.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit, including permission for development and farmland diversion (hereinafter “instant application”), in order to construct the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retailing stores) on the ground of 428.4 square meters of the building area on the 2,163 square meters of land, other than B, and one parcel of land (hereinafter collectively “instant land”).

B. On February 15, 2016, the Defendant rejected the instant application from the Plaintiff on the ground that “The instant land is included in the C Development Plan, so it may incur property loss due to the removal of a building, etc. when the construction of a building is in progress or after completion of the development of an industrial complex.” As such, the Defendant rejected the instant application on the ground that the instant

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 25, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 3 evidence, Eul's 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant established a development plan around September 2009, but it is low possibility of realizing the industrial complex development plan since it was not designated as a general industrial complex until seven years have passed thereafter, and in particular, it is difficult to expect that the land of this case is located at the side of the planned area of the industrial complex and an end-user will appear. Thus, if a new building is built on the land of this case, there is little possibility of removal of the building, and it is difficult to consider losses caused by removal of the building as a significant public interest. On the other hand, the plaintiff who obtained the approval of use of the land of this case did not construct the land of this case for a long time due to the disposition of this case and could not carry out the project accordingly, and thus,