1. The Defendant’s revocation of the authorization for the implementation of the reclamation project on November 2, 2015 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

around May 201, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant on May 3, 201 for the implementation of the clearing project with respect to 5,197 square meters of the 5,197 square meters from May 3, 2011 to March 30, 2014, among the 5,417 square meters of land B in Jeon Chang-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Defendant approved the implementation period of the said clearing project from May 3, 201 to December 15, 2014 upon the Plaintiff’s application.

(2) On November 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the authorization of the instant project in accordance with Articles 116(1)3 and 9(8) of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, on the ground that: (a) on November 2, 2015, the Defendant changed the implementation plan or the project plan without obtaining the Defendant’s approval; (b) the Plaintiff urged the implementation of the project after the lapse of the period for completion; and (c) the Plaintiff failed to implement the project despite being informed of the matters to be supplemented, such as the creation of sites inconsistent with the implementation plan of the reclamation project and the damage to adjacent forests; and (d) the Plaintiff was notified of the said disposition on November 3,

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [The ground for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings] The plaintiff's project in this case where there is no ground for disposition in the absence of the plaintiff's grounds for disposition, while implementing the project in this case, there is no possibility that the plaintiff has invaded or damaged adjacent forest land.

Nevertheless, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for completion within the legitimate period of business.

(1) Article 61 and attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act provides that the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have modified an implementation plan or a business plan without obtaining the Defendant’s approval (section 2). The instant disposition, which violates the disposition standards and deviates from discretionary power, violates the detailed criteria for administrative disposition prescribed in Article 61 and attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, and the Plaintiff invested a huge amount of money in the instant clearing