1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on April 2, 2018 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit to install solar power plants (hereinafter “instant facility”) with the facility capacity of 979.2kw on the 14,376 square meters of forest land 12, Hauri-ri, Hadong-dong, Sunam-do (hereinafter “instant site”) pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Building Act (hereinafter “instant application”).

When the above building permit is granted, pursuant to Article 11(5) of the Building Act, related authorization and permission including permission for development activities under Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

B. On June 7, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the instant application, including “The average slope level of the project site is 19.06 degrees (at least 20 degrees are 47.51% of the total site) and, as it is anticipated that the project would cause damage due to the filling-up during the construction, submission of a plan for installation of facilities to prevent soil outflow.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff supplemented some of the application of this case, completed the small environmental impact assessment (Article 44 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act) and the prior examination of factors influencing disasters (Article 4 of the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters), and the Defendant, on November 1, 2017, held a committee for development and planning pursuant to Article 59(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act to deliberate on the application of this case. The said committee decided to supplement the Plaintiff’s data and review the application for this case on the ground that there were some errors in the project plan submitted by

In other words, the Plaintiff supplemented a part of the instant application, and the Defendant held an Urban Planning Committee on December 6, 2017 to review the instant application, but the said Committee rejected the application on the grounds that the gradient of the instant site is high and is likely to cause environmental damage due to banking.

E. After December 19, 2017, the Defendant, from around December 19, 2017 to March 12, 2018, has the following problems to the Plaintiff.