logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2017.10.19 2017누4153
전기사업(태양광)허가 신청에 대한 불허가처분취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are attached to the Defendant on May 18, 2016.

1. Attached to each of the lands listed in the location of the power plant and cadastral column in the disposal list (hereinafter referred to as “each of the applications of this case”);

1. Each electric utility license application was filed to implement solar power generation projects in the size stated in the development capacity column of the disposal list (hereinafter “each of the instant applications”).

B. On July 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a notice of non-permission regarding the instant application (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) to the Plaintiffs on the following grounds.

The relevant site is located in GunG and 484m, national highway H and 419m, 10m, and residential congested area with at least 388ms, and the site is located in a residential congested area with street restriction regulations, and thus satisfying the conditions of development activities and individual laws, etc. in order to carry out the non-standard electrical business under Article 20-2 (1) 1 and 2 of the Ordinance on Management Plan of the Long-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is subject to development activities. However, as a result of the relevant legal review, even if the permission for the electric business is obtained, it is not appropriate to Article 7 (5) 2 of the Electric Utility Act that is not likely to carry out the electric utility business as planned because it is difficult to carry out the solar power generation project because it is difficult to carry out the solar power generation project as planned (applicable grounds for recognition). Each entry, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Article 7(5)2 of the Electric Utility Act provides that “the electricity business can be carried out in accordance with the plan” as one of the criteria for the permission for the electricity business, and Article 7(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Electric Utility Act provides that “1. The degree of acceptance of an area planned for the construction of electric installations is high, in accordance with the standards for examination of whether the electricity business can be carried out in accordance with the plan;

2. The plans under subparagraph 1 (f) through (i) of attached Table 1 must be specific and feasible;

3. The electricity generation business shall be carried out after completing the power plant in the timely season; and

arrow