1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in solar power generation business with respect to the 4,175 square meters of the paddy field B in Gunsan-si (hereinafter “instant application site”), and obtained a license to engage in electric power generation business from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do on June 25, 2018.

(hereinafter “License for the instant electric generation business”). (b)

On August 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for prior deliberation with respect to the application for permission for solar development activities (hereinafter “instant application”) with respect to the installation of structures and the alteration of form and quality of solar power plants in order to install solar power plants in the instant project application area (hereinafter “instant application”). However, the Defendant’s Urban Planning Committee decided to reject the application on September 6, 2018 on the ground that “the natural landscape and aesthetic damage of the village and farmland surrounding areas, and the farmland erosion concerns and need to be preserved with respect to which agricultural production infrastructure are installed.”

C. On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant application with the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the instant application on October 17, 2018, on the ground that “The natural landscape and aesthetic damage in the village and farmland surrounding the village, and the landscape damage in the surrounding farmland, and the farmland erosion concerns in which agricultural production infrastructure are installed, and need to be preserved.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant rejected the instant application, notwithstanding the fact that there was no risk of damage to natural landscape and aesthetic view around the instant project application site or of farmland erosion where agricultural infrastructure was installed, due to the development activities in the instant case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it was abused discretion, such as misconception of facts and violation of the principle of proportionality.

B. Article 56(1)1 and 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).