도시관리계획 입안제안 반려처분 취소
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 December 8, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 4/5 out of B forest land No. 4,889 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”).
B. On October 2, 1987, on the instant forest and its surrounding areas established a district unit plan, which is designated as a facility site for the installation of a golf course (area name: 36 square meters interest golf course, project operator: Samnam Development Co., Ltd.).
C. The Plaintiff demanded the purchase of the instant forest land by Samnam Development Co., Ltd., the project implementer of the said golf course, but as Samnam Development Co., Ltd. presented its opinion on the non-purchase price, the Defendant issued a public announcement on October 8, 2007, which excluded the instant forest land from the project site of the said golf course as prescribed in Article 2007-282 of the Commercialization City Public Notice on October 8, 2007.
The Plaintiff demanded purchase of the instant forest land to the Public Official Pension Service, a project implementer of a fluent golf course, whose urban management plan was formulated. On April 8, 2008, the Public Official Pension Service notified that the purchase will be suspended due to the restriction, etc. on permission for development activities under the Housing Site Development Business Act for the land of the fluent Do-dong-dong-si. On October 2010, the Plaintiff requested purchase again after the request, but on December 30, 2010, the Plaintiff responded that “the instant forest does not have a purchase plan as land separate from the business area of the fluent golf course.”
E. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of an urban management plan with the content that proposed the Defendant to include the instant forest in the chemical golf course (hereinafter “instant application”). On November 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) whether to additionally incorporate an urban planning facility site into a site for an urban planning facility on November 5, 201; (b) as a matter to be examined and determined by the Public Official Pension Service, which is the project implementer; and (c) as a result of consultation on whether the instant forest can be incorporated into the Public Official Pension Service, the Public Official Pension Service is subject