1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to file an application for each permission for development activities with the Plaintiff on June 4, 2019 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in each of the development activities (hereinafter “instant application”) regarding the installation of solar power infrastructure on the ground of 2,878 square meters and 2,777 square meters on the land among the 2,878 square meters and 2 lots outside Gangnam-si B (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On March 2019, the Gangnam-si Urban Planning Committee held a committee to deliberate on the instant application, and passed a resolution to further review the instant application for “to gather consensus on neighboring houses, etc. to protect the surrounding landscape and hear the business plan of the business entity”.

C. On May 2019, the Gangnam-si Urban Planning Subcommittee held a committee to review the instant application and rejected it on the following grounds.

(i) The height, form, and color of a structure (ii) the height, shape, and color of the structure, when a structure is installed as a residential densely-populated area;

D. On June 4, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application on the ground that the instant application does not meet the standards for permission for development activities, such as the result of deliberation by the Gangseo-si Urban Planning Subcommittee (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is illegal and abused discretion, and is also contrary to the principle of equality. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination of permission for development activities is subject to permission standards and prohibition

The issue of whether the requirements are met because there are many parts prescribed as indefinite concepts is within the area of discretionary judgment of administrative agencies.

Therefore, in principle, the judicial review of it is subject to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretionary power in consideration of the possibility of discretion of the administrative agency on the public interest judgment, and it is misunderstanding of facts.