1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows: (a) the part of the 3rd to 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance (the 1st of the 3rd to 1], and the part of the 9th to 3rd to 5th of the 9th judgment (the 2nd of the 3rd to 2th of the 9th judgment) are the same as the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2)

[Completion 1]

B. As a result of the consultation on permission to divert farmland following the instant application, the Defendant (department in charge of the Agricultural Livestock Industry) expressed on March 8, 2016 that “The State farmland including the relevant farmland, including the farmland, shall be collectively formed as a result of the examination of the application for permission to divert farmland under Article 34 of the Farmland Act, and shall not grant permission to divert farmland in compliance with the standards under Article 33(1)4(b), (c), and (d) of the Farmland Act (which seems to be erroneous in the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act) as it is anticipated that the likelihood of the chain of the diversion of farmland and the surrounding farming environment

[2] On the other hand, the Defendant’s argument that the instant application does not comply with the criteria for permission for solar power generation facilities under Article 7(1) of the Operational Guidelines for Permission for Development Activities in complete-gun, “not to be located within 500 meters in a straight line from the residential congested area,” and “ not to be located near the collective farmland center.” In an appeal seeking revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or change other grounds to the extent that the underlying factual relations are recognized identical to those of the initial disposition. However, the fact that the basic factual relations are identical means that the basic social factual relations are identical in light of the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du752, Jun. 11, 2015).