도시관리계획(체육시설) 폐지결정 취소청구
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the Plaintiff’s participation.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 28, 2006, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) requested the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to approve the management plan for development restriction zones with a public golf course installed in Gyeyang-gu AB area. The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs approved the management plan for development restriction zones with a total floor area of 606,200 square meters and a total floor area of 9,020 square meters on April 24, 2008.
B. On June 9, 2008, the Plaintiff proposed to the Defendant to formulate an urban management plan that establishes a public golf course in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. On October 5, 2009, the Defendant, after deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee, made a decision on an urban management plan that establishes a public golf course of 12 holes on a scale of 717,000 square meters per day (hereinafter “instant project site”) in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, and made a public announcement of the decision on an urban management plan that establishes a public golf course of 12 holes (e.g.
(hereinafter “instant urban management plan”). C.
The instant project site owns approximately 86.7 48 m2,836 m2, each of the Plaintiff C and approximately 11.3 m24 m2,125 m26 m26 m2, including AE, and the remainder of 18 m2% is state-owned and public land, and 14,039 m26 m26 m26 m26 m26 m2, including AE, consent to the “AC public golf course development project” planned by the Plaintiffs.
On May 31, 2011, the Plaintiffs submitted to the Defendant an application for designation of a project implementer and an implementation plan to the effect that they are designated as a co-implementer of the instant project. However, on June 8, 2011, the Defendant returned the said application to the Defendant on the grounds that the requirements for land ownership under the relevant statutes are not satisfied.
E. On June 16, 201, the Plaintiffs filed an application for designation of a project operator and authorization of an implementation plan with the purport that the Plaintiffs, who are joint business operators, own land equivalent to at least 2/3 of the area of the land subject to the project, and satisfy the relevant statutory requirements.