1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 2002, the Defendant: (a) decided an urban planning facility project pursuant to Article 43(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”); (b) on March 12, 2014, pursuant to Article 86(5) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 96(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff was designated as the implementer of the instant project (hereinafter “designated project”).

B. According to the designation of the instant project implementer, Article 97(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act provides that the application for authorization of the instant implementation plan concerning the instant project shall be filed within six months from the date of designation of the project implementer (by September 1, 2014), and on September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for authorization of the implementation plan concerning the instant project (hereinafter “the first application”) with the Defendant pursuant to Article 88 of the National Land Planning Act.

C. However, on October 1, 2014, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the first application by November 28, 2014 (a prior implementation of administrative procedures, such as authorization and permission, supplementation of financing plan, examination of facility safety, etc.). The Plaintiff applied for extension of the period for supplementation on November 28, 2014 and January 28, 2015, but withdrawn the first application on April 2, 2015.

On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff again filed an application for authorization of the implementation plan for the instant project (hereinafter “the second application”) with the Defendant. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant rejected the second application for the following reasons.

The withdrawal of the first application has passed six months from the application deadline for the authorization of the implementation plan specified in the designation of the project implementer of this case, and the project of this case is likely to damage the natural environment, and the possibility of soil and sand in neighboring roads is likely to cause safety problems, the plaintiff did not implement the prior procedures, such as consultation with the relevant administration prior to the second application.

E. The defendant