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

A. On September 5, 2008, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do determined an urban management plan, etc. (Class I district unit planning), etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant district unit planning decision”) for Taedong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si 13-7 and 34,099 square meters (Seoul-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 11: 17,78 square meters, C12 B-dong: 16,321 square meters, hereinafter “instant business area”) for Taedong-dong-dong 3 through 7 districts (hereinafter referred to as “instant district unit planning decision”), and on September 5, 2008, publicly announced as follows by the Gyeonggi-do Notice No. 2008-283 (hereinafter “instant Notice No. 1”).

On January 1, 2008-283 Public Notice of Gyeonggi-do included in the main text, Gwangju (Seoul, 3,4, 5, 6, and 7 District) Urban Management Planning ( Class-I district unit planning zone, change of specific-use area, and Class-I district unit planning zone) shall be determined as follows pursuant to the provisions of Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 25 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the topographic drawings shall be publicly announced pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 (2) of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use.

B. After that, among the above district unit planning, the demarcated area was changed to 17,450 square meters for C11 block, and C12 block to 15,983 square meters for C12 block. On May 2014, one asset trust applied for a housing construction project plan for the Defendant with respect to the size of 34,493 square meters for which the modified C1 block and C12 block are combined to C11 block.

C. On December 3, 2014, the Defendant changed the district unit plan by combining one asset trust with Taenam District C12 block C1 with a project implementer, etc., and approved the housing construction project plan that constructs apartment units and ancillary welfare facilities of 712 households on the 7th project site in Taenam District C-11 block 34,493 square meters (hereinafter “instant project area”) by processing legal fiction pursuant to Article 17(1)5 of the Housing Act (hereinafter “instant project area”). On December 17, 2014, the Defendant publicly notified the following (hereinafter “instant approval disposition”). < Amended by Act No. 2014-236, Dec. 17, 2014>

1. Public notification of the topographical drawing for Taeju-236 announced in the main sentence of Gwangju City (C11 block) in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 8 of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use and Utilization of the Land Planning and Utilization Act in relation to the Taeju-dong Housing Construction Project Plan (C11 block) implemented in the 13-7 and 14 lots of land in Taedong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-

D. On December 31, 2015, the Defendant issued a modified approval for the housing construction project plan that changes the area of the housing construction site from 34,493 square meters to 34,459 square meters, and the number of apartment units from 712 households to 706 households (hereinafter “instant modified approval disposition”), and publicly notified as the head of Gwangju City’s announcement under Article 2015-330.

E. Of the field 2,621 square meters in Gwangju-si ( Address omitted), Gwangju-si (hereinafter “the instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, part 2,058 square meters in the attached Form No. 2,058 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) are located within the instant business area.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In determining the instant district unit plan, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do only posted a notice on the Do newsletter that the topographical map is publicly announced in the Do newsletter, and it does not have been publicly announced in the Do newsletter itself. Thus, the effect of the instant district unit plan is not to take effect under Article 8(2) and (3) of the former Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use (amended by Act No. 9451, Feb. 6, 2009). If the decision becomes effective, the effect of the decision is that the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do fails to publicly announce the topographical map by the second anniversary of the date of public announcement of the determination of the said urban unit plan, and thus becomes void on September 6, 2010, which is the day following the date on which the two years have elapsed since the date of public announcement of the determination of the said urban unit plan. Accordingly, the instant approval disposition and the approval for modification disposition were based

B. In the instant disposition on December 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) partially modified the district unit plan in Taedong District seven districts, including changing the size of the block C-11 from 17,450 square meters to 34,493 square meters; and (b) dealt with the legal fiction pursuant to Article 17(1)5 of the Housing Act; (c) the effect of the determination of the urban management plan on the alteration of the district unit plan in Taedong District seven districts, which dealt with the legal fiction pursuant to Article 17(1)5 of the Housing Act was derived from the publication in the Official Gazette of Gwangju City; (d) the Defendant only published the notice that the above topographical map was published in the public announcement in the public announcement of the instant case; and (e) the Defendant cannot be deemed to have published the above topographical map because it did not issue the public announcement of the management plan on the alteration of the said district unit plan, and thus, the instant approval and disposition constitutes a disposition of invalidation per annum based on the modified district unit plan, the validity of which has not occurred.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 3-2 and evidence Nos. 5-4, the fact that the Gyeonggi-do branch omitted the publication of the topographic map itself while giving the first notice, and the fact that the Defendant omitted the publication of the topographic map while giving the second notice.

B. However, in full view of the above facts and evidence No. 6, the Gyeonggi-do Governor and the defendant, on the premise that there is a topographic map, published the topographic map in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use, etc., on the premise that there is a topographical map. The related books are kept in the Gwangju Viewing Urban Planning and the general public. In fact, as described above, it can be acknowledged that the relevant books, such as topographic, are kept in the Gwangju Viewing Urban Planning and the topographical map, so that the general public can access the original drawing at the urban planning and the office at the time, and even if the above facts are not directly published in the above notice, the announcement procedure for topographic was conducted in accordance with the above series of measures even if it is difficult to publish the district unit planning zone of a wide area in the above facts, taking into account the circumstances where it is difficult for the general public to enter the topographic map in the official bulletin, etc. ( even if the method of announcement is in violation of the relevant laws and regulations, this is a minor defect in the procedure, and it cannot be deemed that

Therefore, each of the above arguments by the plaintiff on the premise that a public notice on a topographic map has not been made is without merit.

C. Moreover, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the decision of the instant district unit plan was invalidated on September 6, 2010 on the premise that the Gyeonggi-do Governor did not make a public announcement of the topographic map as long as the procedures for making a public announcement of the topographic map were completed through the public announcement of the instant case is not reasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)