A. From April 25, 2012, with respect to the instant land owned by the deceased D from around 1979, the Plaintiff was entitled to inheritance due to an agreement division as of April 25, 2012.

6. 29. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer.

In addition, around June 23, 2013 and April 2014, the agreement was reached between D's inheritors on the division of inherited property that the Plaintiff succeeds to all the claims for damages against the Defendant in relation to the land of this case.

B. (1) On December 29, 2004, the Newan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant apartment”) filed an application for the approval of the housing construction project plan with the Defendant City Mayor on December 29, 2004 in order to newly construct ten apartment units E (hereinafter “instant apartment units”).

B. On March 21, 2006, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor approved the said housing construction project plan and determined the area of 12,337 square meters including the instant land as a school site (hereinafter referred to as the “decision on the instant urban planning facility”).

C. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant Mayor revoked the determination of the instant urban planning facilities (schools).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 5, 6, 37, 38, Eul evidence 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant market for the plaintiff's assertion did not fully review the necessity of securing school sites and determined the urban planning facilities of this case (schools). This is the case where the plaintiff's exercise of the plaintiff's property rights is restricted excessively, and it is an illegal decision that deviates from and abused discretionary power because it is a case where the balancing of interests is not conducted at all or it lacks legitimacy and objectivity of balancing of interests.

The defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

B. In full view of each opinion of the Defendant’s assertion (i.e., the head of the Pakistan District Office of Education (hereinafter “the head of the Pakistan District Office”) sent to the Defendant, it is interpreted that the opinion of the head of the Pakistan District Office of Education needs to be secured.