1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit including permission for development to build Class II neighborhood living facilities (office, warehouse, and first floor 2) on the part of the instant orchard, Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant orchard”), C forest land 2,261 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”). The Plaintiff added the instant orchard and forest land to “the instant application site”).

B. On December 3, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition that, if the instant application site, which is a natural green belt on the land use plan, was developed as a building permit, the construction permit (new construction) is not possible on the ground that the instant application site, which is a natural green belt on the land use plan, resulted in the relaxation of surrounding landscape due to the cutting of green belt axiss and structures, etc., and the permission for development activities cannot be granted in accordance with Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the operating guidelines

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a mountain with a low level of land category as an orchard and forest area. The application of this case is cut off due to the construction of national highways and highways adjacent to the application of this case, etc., thereby losing the preservation value or function as a forest, and if construction is conducted according to the Plaintiff’s plan, it may be more harmonized with the surrounding environment or landscape. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful by abusing or abusing discretion.

In addition, the defendant, around November 2007, permitted the construction of warehouse facilities in the application site of this case.