2. The Defendant is limited to the Cheongbuk-do Notice on July 9, 2010.

A. On July 9, 2010, pursuant to Article 30 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 2011; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), the Defendant issued a decision on the urban management planning (amended by the instant urban management planning) with the content that newly constructs sports facilities of 1,088,635 square meters in the Cheongju-si M (hereinafter “instant business area”) at one business district in Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant business area”). The Defendant announced the decision on the urban management planning (hereinafter “decision on the instant urban management planning”) with the content that newly constructs sports facilities of 1,08,635 square meters in the Cheongju-si (hereinafter “the instant business area”).

B. On December 24, 2010, pursuant to Articles 86 and 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 2 of the Cheongbuk-do Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs, the Chungcheongnam-do Mayor authorized the project implementer of the said urban planning facility (hereinafter “instant project”) to designate the Defendant’s Intervenor K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor K”), and publicly announced the implementation plan as the O of the instant project.

C. The Plaintiffs are the owners of the land located within the instant business zone.

On the other hand, on February 22, 2012, K transferred all the rights and status of the instant project to the Hancheon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”), and on May 25, 2012, the Chungcheong City Mayor announced the designation of the executor of the project of the Chungcheong Urban Planning Facility (N golf course and road) project and the modification of the implementation plan, including the fact that the executor of the instant project is changed from the supplementary intervenor K to the supplementary intervenor construction. The supplementary intervenor participated in the instant lawsuit for the Defendant when the supplementary intervenor was in the first instance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. As to the Defendant’s main defense, the Defendant’s revocation of the instant urban management planning decision.