2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The defendant's disposition against the plaintiff on August 28, 2008 to reflect the application for land category change on each land listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2 attached to the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance. The defendant shall revoke the disposition against the plaintiff on August 28, 2008 by application for land category change of each land listed in the above attached Table 2 against the plaintiff on August 28, 20

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) a new argument and its decision at the court of first instance as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be added to the corresponding part; and (b) an addition to “attached Form 12” as referred to in paragraph (3) shall be as stated in the reasoning for the court of first instance, except for adding “attached Form 2” to “attached Form 12”; (c) therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional description; and

6) The total area of the instant golf course and the instant paint is half of 2,021,705 square meters, and the total area of the lake or pond portion is 1,761,576 square meters, including each land listed in the table of the above attached Table 1 (No. 2-2). Therefore, according to the evidence No. 8-2, the total area of the drainage channel, etc. compared to the total area of Green and Puwawawawa, is one:0.87, and the total area of the drainage channel, etc. is equal to that of the ordinary golf course, and the area of the drainage channel, etc. is larger than that of the sports facility site (the area of the drainage channel, etc. is larger than 13%, which is a final report prepared by the Korea Cadastral Association).

7) On the other hand, in the case of a general golf course, the Down is established in the Maritime Academy to adjust or add the difficulty of the courses. On the other hand, in the case of the instant golf course, a drainage channel is installed in the form of surrounding the entire Sweg.

3. Determination on addition

A. The Plaintiff asserts that “Although the use and current status of each land listed in the above separate sheet No. 2 is entirely different from the forest land existing in the forest development-type golf course, the Defendant’s disposition of this case to disregard the use and current status of each land listed in the above separate sheet No. 2, and to set the land category of each land listed in the above separate sheet No. 2 as a sports site

B. The principle of equality under Article 11(1) of the Constitution means that the principle of equality does not mean any absolute equality that denies any discriminatory treatment, but does not constitute discrimination under unreasonable conditions in the application and legislation of the law. Thus, even in the case of discriminatory treatment, it is not against the principle of equality when it is based on reasonable grounds.

C. In light of the above legal principles, as seen in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance “the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, d. judgment, 3) as to each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto, the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto cannot be deemed as forest and forest in itself in its current status, and it is also a safety zone or landscape zone stipulated in Article 8 [Attachment 4] 2-A-A-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act. The use and current status of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto are different from those of the forest located in the forest development-type golf course claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's handling of the land category of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto as a sports site, other than forest and forest, as it violates the principle of equality,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiff and defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges or higher-ranking (Presiding Judge)