2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant formulated a plan for designating and developing an urban development zone for A urban development project (hereinafter “instant project”) as announced D in Gyeonggi-do, and publicly announced it.

1. Name A urban development project;

2. The project implementer intends to implement an urban development project for the planned and systematic development of areas adjacent to history based on the construction of F for the purpose of the project, to formulate a development plan for the designation of an urban development zone and development due to a change in development conditions, to prepare the conditions for installing urban infrastructure, etc.

(b) The location and area of the urban development zone;

(a) Location: G Institute in Gwangju-si in Gyeonggi-do;

(b) Area: 495,747 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant project area”);

4. The operator (28%) the President of the Gwangju City Corporation (70%) and the President of the Gwangju Urban Management Corporation (2%).

B. On January 4, 2018, the Defendant approved an implementation plan for an urban development project (hereinafter “instant implementation plan”) with respect to the instant project as notified E in Gyeonggi-do, as follows, and publicly notified the implementation plan.

C. The Plaintiff owned 1/2 shares of H 3,802 square meters in the instant business area, and the said land was transferred to the operator of the instant business on July 27, 2017 by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on June 12, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 3, 6, 10, 18, Eul's 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The authorization of the instant implementation plan for the Plaintiff’s assertion has the following defects, and is null and void since the defect is serious.

1. The defendant violating the Environmental Impact Assessment Act did not investigate the present status of geological features of the land in the project area when the environmental impact assessment of the project in this case was conducted by omitting an investigation into the present status of geological features of the land in the project area, and accordingly, there were geological mineral cultural heritage resources in the project area and surrounding areas.