1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On September 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission on conversion of farmland, which is deemed as development activities to create a site for solar power infrastructure (land form and quality change) and permission for development activities, with respect to the aggregate of 4,503 square meters of land outside B and four parcels in Hanam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On June 9, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-permission for development activities to the Plaintiff on the following grounds after deliberation by the Urban and Gun Planning Committee.

(1) Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and attached Table 1-22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) provides that “The installation of solar power infrastructure (so-called solar power generation) of non-permission grounds for deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee pursuant to Article 59 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, shall be rejected on the ground of “site improper” as a result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee on August 22, 2019 (Article 21-D1(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which provides that “A building or structure constructed or installed by a development act shall not damage the surrounding natural landscape and aesthetic view, and shall be in harmony with the surrounding building.” The surrounding area shall be composed of forests and farmland without development, and shall damage the natural landscape and aesthetic view of surrounding areas due to the current state of cultivating rice, bean, etc., and conditions for permission for development activities are unlikely.”

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate;

A. The plaintiff 1's assertion is merely a fact that the plaintiff 1 made the forest and farmland in which the surrounding areas are without development, and the situation of cultivating rice, bean, and sacrines, etc. is likely to damage the natural landscape and fine view of the surrounding areas.

Since the specific grounds for non-permission cannot be known, it is impossible to balance interests between the conflicting public interest and the Plaintiff’s private interest, and there is no predictability for administrative agencies’ acts.

2. The instant disposition is as follows.