The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of lawsuit, including the part arising from the participation in the lawsuit, shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 17, 2018, the Intervenor, etc. filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities with the content of installing solar power infrastructure (hereinafter referred to as “instant power infrastructure”) in each of the following locations (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant application site”).

The Intervenor, etc. shared the land of this case, which is 25,796 square meters in Seoul Special Self-Governing Province E-U.S. among the instant application sites.

26,722 square meters in total, E, F, and G 27,651 square meters in total, E, G, H, and H 27,12 square meters in the location of the applicant, B, the applicant for which is located, E, E, and H

B. After undergoing a small-scale environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the Defendant permitted the Intervenor, etc. to engage in development activities on the instant application site on September 31, 2021 on the date of permission for the project period on September 25, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant permission disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner and possessor of a fraternity located in the land adjacent to the boundary line of the instant application site. The Plaintiff is the owner of a private road established on the ground of 1,725 square meters prior to I, YY-gun, North Korea, where the Intervenor, etc. must have access to the instant infrastructure. As such, the Plaintiff has a legal interest with the right of consent or interest in living environment in relation to the instant permission disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant permission disposition.

B. The main defense of the Defendant and the Intervenor is only owned by the Plaintiff in the vicinity of the instant application site and does not reside in the vicinity of the instant application site. As such, there is any legal interest to seek the revocation of the instant permission disposition on the ground of infringement of environmental rights, etc.