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 March 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities for the installation of solar power infrastructure with respect to 24,086 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) outside Gangseo-si B and one parcel (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On May 28, 2018, the Defendant, following deliberation by the Gangnam-si Urban Planning Committee, against the Plaintiff on May 28, 2018: (a) on the following grounds, rejected the Plaintiff: (b) 1); (c) damage to the natural landscape and aesthetic view surrounding areas at the time of installing a structure adjacent to the roadside; (d) a group habitats of trees; and (e) failure to meet the standards for permission to engage in development activities for environmental pollution, destruction of ecosystems, and damage caused by soil erosion: (e) failure to grant permission to engage in development activities, such as damage to the surrounding natural environment, conservation of green areas, risk of disaster caused by soil erosion (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(c) On August 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Gangwon-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 10, 2019. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, and evidence 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was erroneous or abused its discretionary power in violation of the principle of proportionality and equality.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination of permission for development activities is subject to permission standards and prohibition

The issue of whether the requirements are met because there are many parts prescribed as indefinite concepts is within the area of discretionary judgment of administrative agencies.

Therefore, in principle, the judicial review of the administrative agency is limited to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretion, taking into account the possibility of discretion on the public interest judgment of the administrative agency, and whether there is a violation of the principle of mistake of facts and proportionality and equality, etc., and it contests the validity of the administrative act with respect to deviation or abuse of discretion.