1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On November 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit (including development activities and permission for mountainous district conversion; hereinafter “instant application”) that newly constructs nine single houses on the ground of Jeonyang-gun B (hereinafter “the instant application site”).

On December 30, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the denial of permission on the instant application on the ground that “The instant application was inappropriate pursuant to Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the ground that “The instant application was inappropriate pursuant to Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the ground that it constitutes a forest worthy of special protection for the conservation of natural scenery as a large tree located at the entrance of the duyangyang-Eup-do Office where the instant application was filed, and that there was concerns about damage to soil and sand, etc. at the bottom

(2) In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole oral argument as to the legitimacy of disposition of the plaintiff's discretionary power and abuse of discretionary power, the application of this case does not constitute a forest worthy of special protection for the conservation of natural landscape, as it does not constitute a forest having special protection for the conservation of natural landscape, because the major trees of the Hayangyang-gun group and the planted large trees are not special tourism resources as large trees of the kind of miscellaneous trees, and there is a village and a field adjacent to the application of this case, and there is a fire station, a gas station, a general restaurant, and a Moel on the south of the application of this case, and there is no risk of damaging the natural landscape and aesthetic view due to the construction permit of this case. The defendant does not present all the grounds that damage to the soil station, etc., and the consent of neighboring residents can not be considered as grounds for non-permission.