1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part pertaining to the participation in the appeal shall be borne by the Intervenor.

1. The term "administrative plans quoted in the judgment of the first instance" means administrative plans that are set as the activity criteria for realizing order at a certain point in the future by comprehensively coordinating various means of administration in order to achieve specific administrative goals such as construction, maintenance, improvement, etc. of cities on the basis of professional and technical judgments concerning administration, and the related Acts and subordinate statutes only provide for abstract administrative goals and procedures, but do not provide for any particular provisions regarding the contents of

Therefore, the administrative body has a relatively wide range of freedom to formulate and determine specific administrative plans.

However, there is a limitation that the freedom of such formation, which the administrative body has, is not unlimited, but should be fairly compared not only between the public interest and private interest but also between the public interest and private interest.

Where an administrative body fails to implement an administrative plan at all, or omits any matter that should be included in the subject of consideration of the amount of interest while formulating and determining the administrative plan, or where it lacks legitimacy and objectivity despite the amount of interest balancing, it is unlawful.

In full view of the various circumstances cited in the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant did not pay all profits while rendering the instant disposition. (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5426, Sept. 8, 2006)

(1) did not include matters to be included in the subject of consideration of the balance of profits.

However, in violation of the principle of proportionality and equality, it does not seem to lack legitimacy and objectivity.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate.