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 June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff received a “report of conformity with the waste disposal business plan (part of the waste disposal business plan)” from the original regional environmental office of Korea on the basis of environmental impact assessment, etc. conducted since October 13, 2013, based on the environmental impact assessment, etc. conducted from the original regional environmental office of Korea, in order to install a commercial waste and the designated waste landfill facility (hereinafter “instant waste landfill facility” and the said waste disposal facility installation and operation business (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On July 25, 2013, pursuant to Article 26(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a proposal for formulating a single-gun management plan (waste disposal facilities) with the content of installing a general waste in the single-gun jurisdiction and a general waste in the workplace located across the country and a waste disposal facility for designated wastes.

(hereinafter referred to as "the application of this case"). (c)

On September 27, 2013, the Defendant held a Committee on the Gun Planning of Yangyang-gun, which received advice from its members and received advice, and on October 4, 2013, after deliberation by the Gun Affairs Coordination Committee, notified the Plaintiff of improper information on the instant application on October 7, 2013 for the same reasons as the attached Table 1.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on December 27, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant’s procedural defect in the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is obligated to make the Gun Planning Committee determine the appropriateness of the instant application pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Ordinance on Mayang-gun Urban Planning when the residents propose the formulation of an urban management plan. However, the Defendant’s internal deliberative body without going through consultation with the Gun Planning Committee.