1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On July 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for the creation of a Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores, resting restaurants, Council members) and Class II neighborhood living facilities (offices) with respect to the Defendant of Suwon-si B 2,817 square meters and C 938 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). The Defendant presented advice to the Suwon City Urban Planning Committee on the instant application, and notified the Plaintiff of the results of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee on August 30, 2018. The results of deliberation are as follows: “The relevant area requires the prevention of disorderly urbanization and preservation as a green production green area in which farmland is grouped, and, in order to prevent the increase of social costs, such as economic aspects, in establishing urban planning in the future from the long-term point of view, in order to prevent the increase in the designation of the relevant area, the purpose and characteristics of the designation of the relevant area, connection with infrastructure (water, sewerage, road, etc.), smooth flow of transit traffic, impact on the display of functions of surrounding farmland, and streetside landscape, etc., it is reasonable to consider the results of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee on August 30, 2018.”

On September 3, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application pursuant to Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) before completing the establishment of a comprehensive detailed plan for the relevant area (in accordance with the results of deliberation by the said Urban Planning Committee).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The defendant did not grant the opportunity to present opinions as prescribed by Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act in rendering the instant disposition, which is procedural defect in Gap’s 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul’s 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.