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

A. The Plaintiff is one of the co-owners who inherited the instant land from the network B that was the owner of the land indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On April 21, 2014, in order to create a C parking lot, the Defendant: (a) designated a total of KRW 4,669 square meters of KRW 4,669,00, including the instant land, as a parking lot site; and (b) announced the relevant topographical map as “the Determination (Change of Parking Lots) of the Seosan Urban Management Plan (Urban Planning Facility) and the Notification of Topographical Drawings (hereinafter “instant Notification”)” (hereinafter “instant Notification”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Defendant’s lawsuit of this case’s main defense is unlawful, since it was filed 90 days from the effective date of the public notice of this case.

(b) Except as provided in the proviso of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a judgment revocation suit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc.

(Article 20(1) main text of the Administrative Litigation Act). Whether the period of filing a lawsuit is complied with is an ex officio investigation by the court as a litigation requirement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Nu490 delivered on January 20, 1987). Meanwhile, a person who has an interest in an administrative disposition by a public notice ought to be deemed to have known of an administrative disposition on the date the public notice became effective, regardless of whether he/she actually knew of the fact that the public notice was given.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3847 Decided April 14, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2623 Decided March 14, 2013, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant designated the instant land as a parking lot site and publicly notified the instant topographical map on April 21, 2014; and (b) the effect of the decision on an urban/Gun management plan, such as the instant public notice, occurs from the date of announcement of the topographical map; and (c) thus, the land plan and utilization is planned.