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

A. Sousan National Parks are located in the shortest area in the case of permanent residence of Gyeongbuk-do, and the area equivalent to 17% of that is located in the shortest area in the case of permanent residence of Gyeongbuk-do.

B. On December 6, 201, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu of permanent residence submitted a petition to the Plaintiff on a matter that the name of the administrative district was changed from the Si/Gu of Young-si to the Si of Young-si to the Si of Young-si.

C. From January 3, 2012 to January 25, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a pre-announcement of legislation on the draft of the Ordinance on the Name and District of the Young-si Eup/Myeon/Dong (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) with the content of changing the name of the “Yong-si, Young-si,” from January 3, 2012 to the “Yong-si, Young-si, the Plaintiff presented to the Plaintiff a dissenting opinion on the instant Ordinance with the purport that the instant Ordinance causes administrative confusion, inconvenience among residents, and conflicts between regions.

Nevertheless, on February 27, 2012, the Permanent Resident City Council resolved the Ordinance of this case on the grounds of the improvement of regional map through the change of the name of the administrative district and the increase in trademark value of agricultural and fishery products, and the Plaintiff promulgated the Ordinance of this case on March 15, 2012.

E. Accordingly, the head of Yangyang-gu filed an application for dispute mediation with the Defendant to ensure that the name of “a short-term area of permanent residence of Gyeongbuk-do” is not used as “a small-term area of permanent residence of Gyeongbuk-do.”

On June 14, 2012, the Central Dispute Mediation Committee rendered a decision to accept the above application for dispute mediation by the head of Yangyang-gu Gun, and the defendant notified the plaintiff of the above decision on June 18, 2012.

(B) On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a performance plan according to the instant dispute mediation decision to the Defendant on June 21, 2012. On June 26, 2012, the Defendant submitted the instant municipal ordinance to the Plaintiff according to the purport of the instant dispute mediation decision pursuant to Article 170(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff lacks intent to implement the dispute mediation decision.