The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to engage in development activities on November 12, 2019 is revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a special purpose corporation established by B (hereinafter “B”) on December 12, 2017 to carry out the construction and operation of solar power infrastructure using the expressway assets (hereinafter “instant project”) pursuant to the C solar power generation project agreement concluded with the Korea Highway Corporation (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. On September 13, 2018, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status as a project implementer B under the instant agreement, and filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities to install two solar power plants (hereinafter “the first application”) on the ground of the aggregate of 9,832 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) of all the 31 square meters (Fsolar power plants, G solar power plants, and hereinafter “instant power facilities”) located on the surface of the Jeonbuk-gun-gun, Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, which is an aggregate of 31 square meters of “D Highway” (hereinafter “instant site”), as indicated in the list, and the Defendant rejected the application for the following reasons:

(hereinafter “First Non-permission Disposition”). The expressway at issue replys to improper location in solar facilities as a result of a review of the appropriate maintenance of road conditions, harmony with land use in surrounding areas, impact on surrounding communities and residents, sustainability of road safety in the future, etc., as a road passing through the Korean military urban area under the National Land Planning Act.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication on the first non-permission disposition with the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission. On June 21, 2019, the said Adjudication Committee revoked the first non-permission disposition on the ground that the grounds that the grounds for the first non-permission disposition are unclear and that the first non-permission disposition was not necessarily subject to deliberation by the urban planning committee that should be necessarily

(hereinafter “instant adjudication”) D.

Since August 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities again with the same content as the first application with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”).