1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land acquisition and new housing (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”).

On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a building report with the Defendant to newly build a detached house on the land owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant accepted the said report on September 8, 2015.

After completing the construction of the housing, the Plaintiff completed the completion inspection on August 16, 2016, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on October 10, 2016.

B, on May 4, 2015, both B and 6 others, obtained permission for the development business of solar power generation from the Defendant for the same solar power generation business as indicated in attached Table 1, and on May 22, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for permission for the development of the instant land to install solar power generation facilities (hereinafter referred to as “instant power generation facilities”) with each land indicated in the “power plant location” column in the same Table, the neighboring land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”). However, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission on the said application on October 22, 2015.

B and six other parties filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of each of the above non-permission dispositions with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission on November 26, 2015, and the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling citing the claims filed by B and six other parties on February 29, 2016.

According to the above decision of the administrative appeal, the Defendant rendered each permission for development activities (hereinafter “instant disposition”) regarding the land in this case to B and six others on April 8, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] The defendant's judgment as to the facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 1 through 13, 28, 29, 34, 35 evidence, Eul's statements, and Eul's 8 (including each number in the case of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading, and the whole purport of the defense, cannot be viewed as a violation of the plaintiff's legal interest. Thus, the plaintiff's disposition of this case.