1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit that includes a permit for development and a permit for diversion of farmland (hereinafter “instant application”) on the ground of 2,163 square meters on the ground of 2,163 square meters of the building area on the ground of 466.39 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 15, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application for the following reasons against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

As a result of consultation with the relevant department on the case of application for a building permit, since the above parcel is included in the C Industrial Complex Development Plan, it may cause property loss due to the removal of buildings, etc. when the construction of a building is in progress or after completion of the development of an industrial complex.

Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 25, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 3, Eul's 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant promoted a development plan for the C Industrial Complex from September 2009, but the time seven years have passed since the designation of the general industrial complex, which is low possibility of realizing the industrial complex development plan, and in particular, it is difficult to expect that the instant land will be located at the side of the planned area of the industrial complex, and it is difficult to expect an end-user to appear. Thus, if the instant building is newly constructed on the instant land, there is little possibility to remove the relevant building, and it is difficult to view that the damage

On the other hand, the plaintiff with consent to use the land of this case is due to the disposition of this case.