1. On April 21, 2015, 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 January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities to newly construct swine breeding facilities (animals and food-related facilities; hereinafter “instant breeding facilities”) on the ground of the 3,642 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter “instant application for permission”). (b)

On March 25, 2015, the Defendant requested a written deliberation to the Urban Planning Committee in relation to the above application for permission, and the Urban Planning Committee rejected the decision on March 25, 2015 on the ground that “the likelihood of overcoming infrastructure, such as access road narrows following the proliferation and grouping of livestock pens, concerns over the outbreak of preventive measures, etc. due to the mixture of friendships and moneys, the occurrence of damage factors, such as malodor, etc., in neighboring housing sites due to the location of money death, and the failure to take measures

C. The Defendant rejected the application for permission of this case on April 21, 2015 according to the above decision.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In addition, there is no individual and specific proof as to the grounds for disposition of this case. Even if the grounds for disposition of this case exist, the disposition of this case is excessively limited to the Plaintiff’s property right, and it violates the principle of proportionality, and contrary to the Defendant’s permission to engage in similar development activities in the vicinity of the land of this case, there is an error of deviation and abuse of discretionary power as it violates the principle of equality, and thus, is in violation of the principle of equality. In addition, according to Article 57(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the competent administrative agency should not grant permission or refuse permission within 15 days. The Defendant from the Plaintiff.