2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

On October 11, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D forest land 2,411 square meters in Gu-ri, Gu-si, Gu-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The said land is currently divided into ① 330 square meters in the same D forest 30 square meters after division, ② 436 square meters in the same E forest 436 square meters in the same E forest 30 square meters, ③ 300 square meters in the same F parking lot, ④ 1,322 square meters in the same G orchard

(A) Of the partitioned lands, the land indicated in the number 1 through 4 is collectively referred to as “instant land,” and the divided individual land refers to “D land,” etc. using the administrative district name and the lot number.” On July 4, 2018, the Defendant designated and announced as a public housing area in the sphere of the Seoul Special Act on Public Housing (amended by Act No. 16417, Apr. 30, 2019; hereinafter the same) the area of the instant land, including the instant land, as I publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport pursuant to Article 6 of the former Special Act on Public Housing (amended by Act No. 16417, Apr. 30, 2019; hereinafter the same) and its main contents

1. The name, location, and area of a housing zone;

(a) Name: C station area public housing zone (hereinafter referred to as “public housing zone in this case”);

(b) Location: Members of Dong-si B in Gyeonggi-do;

(c) Area: 799,219 square meters;

2. The designation date of a housing zone: The date of publication on the Official Gazette ( July 4, 2018);

3. Type of project: A public housing project under Article 2 of the Special Act on Public Housing.

4. A public housing project operator: The facts that there is no dispute over the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (the Intervenor joining the Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) [based on recognition], the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the overall purport of the instant disposition are as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and subordinate statutes

Plaintiff’s assertion

The instant disposition was unlawful by deviating from the limits of discretion, since it did not fully consider the following circumstances and did not properly balance public and private interests.

① The instant land is distinguishable from the remaining parts of the instant public housing zone, with the boundary line of L and M roads connecting J and K. As such, the instant land is distinguishable from those of the instant public housing zone.