1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion added by the defendant in this court: therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the government's new and renewable energy business permission cannot be granted indiscreetly prior to the announcement of the details of the new and renewable energy business in accordance with the above guidelines, by comprehensively examining whether local residents were actually business entities, whether local residents contributed to increase of income, and whether they meet the long-term goals of expanding new and renewable energy generation business, rather than granting permission to implement the local administration that conforms to the above guidelines, referring to the guidelines for the location of solar power infrastructure announced by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on March 2017

B. 1) In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or alter other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the original disposition are deemed identical to the basic facts. The existence of such basic facts is determined based on whether the relevant basic social facts are identical in basic points, based on the specific facts before the grounds for disposition are legally assessed. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the initial grounds for the disposition are identical to the grounds for the disposition, on the ground that the additional or modified grounds already exist at the time of the disposition or the relevant parties knew of such facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu3895, Feb. 14, 1992; 2009Du15586, Nov. 26, 2009) in light of the above legal principles.