1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs obtained an electric utility business license from the Defendant for solar power generation as shown in the attached Table 1.

B. On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an application for permission to engage in development activities (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant to install solar power generation facilities of 2,178kW in 2,178km (hereinafter “instant solar power generation facilities”).

C. On April 10, 2018, the Defendant rejected the instant application from the Plaintiffs on the following grounds:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). Non-permission of development activities - Deliberation and resolution on urban planning that does not conform to the standards for permission for development activities under Articles 56 and 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act - [Civil Petitions-K (2018)] Non-consultations on permission for conversion of mountainous districts / Non-consultations on permission for conversion of mountainous districts / Non-consultations on permission for conversion of mountainous districts - An act facilities capable of permission for solar power generation facilities or facilities for conversion of mountainous districts - Article 18 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and attached Table 4(1)6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Article 20(6) of the same Act) shall not terminate natural scenery. In addition, even if there is no legal basis under the relevant law, all circumstances, such as the location and surrounding matters of the relevant facilities (local highways adjacent to local roads) and the maintenance of natural environment, etc., are considered as a whole, which could infringe public interests.

As a result of the determination, the “Non-consultation” [Civil Petitions Division-M ( April 10, 2018)]

D. On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Superior-do Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on May 30, 2018, the Gyeongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiffs’ petition for administrative appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap, 1.