1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this part of the disposition is the same as that of the corresponding column of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, the judgment of the first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination on the legality of a disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the grounds for the judgment by the court concerning this part of the pertinent statutes are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be quoted pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

B. 1) The filing of the instant application is based on the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11798, May 22, 2013; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”).

(ii) On January 2, 2012, the Defendant requested the head of the Environmental Sanitation Service, etc. to request for consultation on whether the instant application conflicts with relevant laws and regulations, and on January 4, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request to submit the review data to the Plaintiff by February 3, 2012, because the application for consultation on development activities (land form and quality change) relating to the instant application falls under the matters to be deliberated by the Gun Planning Committee, and submitted the review data to the head of the former Regional Environment Office on January 30, 2012.

3) On March 30, 2012, the Defendant filed a request for prior examination of environmental feasibility with the competent regional environmental office prior to the Plaintiff. However, on March 30, 2012, the Defendant made a request for prior examination of environmental feasibility, which was unable to receive a document due to the lack of a request for prior examination of environmental feasibility, and made an interim notification to the effect that the instant request is scheduled to be processed after the completion of prior examination of environmental feasibility. On April 24, 2012, the head of the competent regional environmental office responded to the Defendant’s opinion on the prior examination of environmental feasibility.