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 November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained permission for solar power generation projects from the Cheongnam-do Governor with respect to Chungcheongnam-gun B (hereinafter “instant application site”) with respect to the following content:

B

B. On February 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for development activities around February 2018 for the purpose of creating a site for solar power infrastructure in the instant application site.

C. As a result of deliberation on the instant application, on May 31, 2018, the Gun Planning Committee rejected the instant application on the ground that “The standing trees (pine trees, etc.) need to be preserved in good condition, and the site for the application is located at the entrance of the village, thereby impairing the surrounding landscape at the time of installing solar power infrastructure.”

On June 19, 2018, the Defendant returned the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that “The National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 56(1) [Attachment 1-2] [Attachment 1-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act fail to meet the standards for permission for development activities

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the administrative appeals commission, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Administrative Appeals Commission, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 19, 2018.

On December 3, 2018, the Plaintiff was served with a written ruling of the Administrative Appeals Commission in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 15 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant presented only the content of the underlying law as the ground for the disposition of this case, and did not present specific grounds or reasons.

In addition, the application of this case conforms to the requirements of the defendant's development permission operation guidelines, and the defendant is not reasonable, reasonable and binding.