1. The Defendant’s disposition of rejection of an application for permission to engage in development activities against the Plaintiff on September 18, 2019 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for development activities with the Defendant on October 17, 2018, to install solar power facilities (hereinafter “instant power facilities”) on the 9,879 square meters of the 13,553 square meters of the 13,553 square meters of Gangwon-gun B (hereinafter “instant application site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On April 29, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the “Conditional Resolution” subject to the “Settlement of Residents Dissenting Civil Petitions.”

C. On July 25, 2019, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to supplement through a reply to the submission of supplementary items for permission for development acts (B). On September 3, 2019, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the final supplement by September 16, 2019, through a public notice “a request to supplement permission for development acts” (B).

On September 18, 2019, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition with respect to the instant application on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Conditional matters to be resolved according to the result of the deliberation by the Gun Planning Committee of Ycheon-gun, would be rejected an application for permission for development activities pursuant to Articles 24 and 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, as the supplementation of “a neighboring penture to the installation of solar power infrastructure and the removal of the objection by residents

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 through 5, Purport of whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion presented Articles 24 and 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter "Civil Petitions Treatment Act") as the basis law at the time of the disposition of this case.

However, each of the above provisions is merely applicable to “a case where any supplementary procedural or formal defect exists,” and it cannot be used as the basis for the above provisions when demanding the resolution of civil petitions by residents as in the instant case.

The defendant's grounds for the disposition of this case include other reasons in addition to the resolution of civil complaints against residents.