1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained permission for solar power generation projects from the Defendant in Chungcheongnam-gun B (hereinafter “instant application site”).

An application site: Installation of structure B (forest and conservation management area) in Cheongyang-gun (forest and conservation management area): An application area (2,844 square meters), solar-sliding type (sloping alteration): An application area (4,562 square meters) and gradient 14.4 square meters: Consultation on conversion of a site development due to the installation of solar power plants: A mountainous district subject to exclusive use (quasi conservation mountainous district, ownership by oneself, 4,562 square meters) was filed with the Defendant on May 25, 2016, to create a site for solar power infrastructure (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”), with the following permission for development activities (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”).

On July 20, 2016, the Defendant, following deliberation by the Cheongyang-gun Urban Planning Committee on Cheongyang-gun Urban Planning on July 26, 2016, on the Plaintiff: (a) it is inappropriate for the Defendant to change the purpose of the instant application into solar power infrastructure in only one year from the national subsidy afforestation area in 2015 (hereinafter “the ground for first disposition”); (b) the instant application area is adjacent to the main road as a conservation and control area for the special-purpose area and is adjacent to the main road; and (c) there are problems in the landscape due to the entry into and exit into the village (hereinafter “the ground for second disposition”).

On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission. However, the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 21, 2016.

The Plaintiff’s disposition of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to facts without any dispute (applicable to recognition), Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, 13, Eul’s evidence 1, 15, and 16, and the overall purport of the pleading of this case should be revoked as it deviates from and abused discretion for the following reasons.

This case’s application is filed by the previous owner of the instant application site.