1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities including change of form and quality and installation of structures for the creation of a site for solar power infrastructure on the land outside B and six parcels (hereinafter “instant application site”).

(1) Results of deliberation by the Urban Planning and Development Subcommittee: 1) Violation 1) Violation 2) Violation 2) Violation 3) Violation 2) Violation 3) Violation 3) Violation 3) Violation 3) Violation 16 (2) Violation 4) Violation 4 (2) Violation 6) Violation 4 (2) Violation 1) Violation 4 (2) Violation 6) Violation 6) Violation 5 (2) Violation 2) Violation 1 (2) Violation 2) Violation 1 of the 3) Violation 16 (2) Violation 4) Violation 1 of the

(b) Site location improper as it damages the surrounding natural scenery and aesthetic view and fails to be in harmony with the surroundings pursuant to attached Table 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

B. In accordance with Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Articles 57 and 58 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant rejected the said application for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made in deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1 Permission for development activities is subject to permission standards and prohibition

The issue of whether the requirements are met because there are many parts prescribed as indefinite concepts is within the area of discretionary judgment of administrative agencies.

Therefore, the judicial review of this is limited to whether or not there is deviation or abuse of discretionary power, in principle, considering the possibility of discretion on the public interest judgment of the administrative agency.