2. The Defendant’s facilities for the Kim Sea’s Urban Planning Facilities against the Plaintiff on August 27, 2015:

A. On August 25, 2009, the term “Defendant” is collectively referred to as “Defendant” and is collectively referred to as “Defendant”. On August 25, 2009, the Plaintiff was designated by the project implementer of the Kim Sea Urban Planning Facility (sports facilities: golf courses, playgrounds) project (hereinafter “instant project”), which is a public golf course 27 holes, golf practice ranges, playgrounds, playgrounds, etc., and a project implementer of the public golf course, the installation of a golf course 27 holes, and the Kim Sea Planning Facility Project (hereinafter “sports facilities”).

B. On May 28, 2010, the Defendant: (a) on May 28, 2010, approved an implementation plan for the project of the Kim Sea Urban Planning Facility (sports facility: the location of the project implementation site: 763 square meters in the actual course in Kimhae-si; (b) 1,804,767 square meters in the implementation area; (c) public golf course: 27 holes in the public golf course; (d) tentative practice course; (e) outdoor driving range; and (e) the project period: from the authorization date of the implementation plan to December 31, 2012; (e) on June 1, 2010, the Defendant publicly notified the implementation plan for the project of the Kim Sea Urban Planning Facility (sports facility: 151 square meters in the new site in the implementation of the project: 184,849 square meters in the implementation area: 3 pages in the tennis-si; (e) 1, 1004, 9 et al., 2131.

C. On August 27, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the authorization of the instant project implementation plan on the following grounds:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). In the case of the Kimhae-si, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport obtained the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning facilities (sports facilities: golf courses and playgrounds) pursuant to Article 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as “National Land Planning Act”), but the implementation plan and the submission of opinions on the implementation plan have not been completed for the period specified in the implementation plan. The dispute between the existing investors and the feasibility of the project.