1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the Defendant to newly build five Dong and plant-related facilities (hereinafter “the instant house”) with a total floor area of 4,330 square meters on the ground of 7,490 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant site”) outside and two parcels, namely, Asan-si, Busan-si, and two parcels, an agricultural and forest area (hereinafter “instant application site”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On December 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application against the Plaintiff for the following reasons.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) . - Japan, ASEAN, from July 201 to December 201, was designated as an institution subject to food culture specialization from the Ministry of Health and Welfare to develop D villages in 2011 by inserting the budget of KRW 55,00,000 from July 1, 201, and has been awarded an institution of merit in improving food culture in Chungcheongnam-do from 2014 to 2016, including the Prime Minister’s award of food culture improvement in 2014, including D’s food culture promotion, and maintaining an eco-friendly food tourism destination with several white persons per day through a nationwide food-related village, and maintaining a special food culture specialized distance. In particular, it is not appropriate to reduce the local economy due to a significant decrease in food-related malodor and decentralization, etc., and thus, it is apparent that it is improper to newly construct a new local economy.

On February 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Cheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that the construction permit for the instant money does not fall under the discretionary act, so the application of this case is "Building Act and National Land Planning and Utilization Act", and "National Land Planning and Utilization Act".

set forth in the Regulations.