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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On March 23, 198, the Plaintiff is the owner who purchased 35,530 square meters of forest land B in Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

B. On October 16, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant to the effect that, inasmuch as the Defendant’s use of approximately KRW 2,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) of the said forest as a concrete packageed into a parking lot, the current status of the use of the instant forest as a parking lot was changed into a parking lot, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant to file a request for the implementation of the procedures for land alteration (land division and land category change) pursuant to Articles 86 and 87 of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records (hereinafter “Land Survey

C. Upon receipt of the above civil petition, the Defendant sent the same civil petition to Masan-gu, the competent cadastral authority. On October 26, 2012, the head of Masan-dong, the subordinate agency of the Msan-gu, submitted a civil petition to the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of October 26, 2012, which is the inconvenience of walking from the residents who have been using Msan-ro for several hundreds of time, and thus, the instant forest was packaged as concrete as a public labor project, which is the nature of the spraying project, from the residents' convenience and the environment improvement shop, so the instant forest is not subject to Article 86(1) of the Land Survey Act

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form 1 of the relevant statutes is as indicated in the relevant statutes.

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. Even if the Defendant’s omission was confirmed to be illegal due to the following reasons in the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits, it is impossible to obtain relief from the Plaintiff’s rights and interests seeking the movement of the forest of this case ultimately. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

1 Even if a “Gu” is not an autonomous Gu, it has the standing to be accused in the administrative litigation if it is delegated with the authority under the statutes. Therefore, the decision on whether to move the forest of this case shall be made.