1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of 9292m2, D forest land, and 120m2, E forest land, and 99.2m2m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On May 9, 1938, the land of this case was determined and publicly announced as urban planning facilities (park) as the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on May 9, 1938 (hereinafter “determination of urban planning facilities of this case”), and the Minister of Construction and Transportation decided and publicly announced the H park building plan including the land of this case as G public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on May 10, 1989.

C. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs asserted that the determination of the instant urban planning facility was invalidated on May 10, 1948, and filed a claim against the Defendant for a public announcement of invalidation of the designation of a neighboring park. However, on July 7, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the said request by the Plaintiffs, stating that “the instant land cannot be deemed to have lost its effect of the determination of urban planning facility (park),” and that “the instant land cannot be deemed to have lost its effect of the determination of the urban

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including serial numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s determination of urban planning facilities of this case is “decision of urban planning plans concerning the construction of urban parks” under the former Urban Park and Green Areas Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7476, Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter “Urban Park Act”) and its announcement date is May 9, 1938. The said announcement date was no announcement of a park building plan concerning the construction of urban parks with respect to the instant land by May 9, 1948, when ten years have passed since the said announcement date. Thus, the determination of urban planning facilities of this case became null and void on May 10, 1948.

Therefore, the defendant, as the Do governor having jurisdiction over the land of this case, has a duty to publicly announce such fact in the official report without delay pursuant to Article 17 (2) of the Urban Park Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.