1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed each application with the Defendant for permission to divert farmland and permission to engage in development activities (hereinafter “instant application”) to install solar power infrastructure and access roads to the said facilities on the ground (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. On November 5, 2015, the Defendant presented a proposal for deliberation on development activities to the Full Do-gun Urban Planning Committee (hereinafter “Urban Planning Committee”), and the Urban Planning Committee requested the Plaintiff to supplement the following five items:

(1) In cases of D (hereinafter referred to as "D"), consultation with the landowner is required due to restrictions on the use of the land surrounded by the site for solar-powered facilities, and in cases where consultation is not possible, E or C shall be excluded from the main project site.

C. Although the Plaintiff submitted complementary matters to the Urban Planning Committee, on March 18, 2016, the Urban Planning Committee rejected the deliberation on the development activities for solar power infrastructure on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not go against the above supplementary requirements (i.e., (ii) the above supplementary requirements; (iii) as a result, in the case of D, it is unlikely to cause damage due to the increase in the number of floors surrounded by the project site; and (iv) as a plan to cut the relevant development activities with a plan to cut the upper part in calculating the calculation thereof, there is a risk of causing damage due to the soil outflow and damage to the landscape of natural villages.”

The defendant shall make a resolution on March 29, 2016 by the Doi-gun Urban Planning Committee to the plaintiff.