1. All of 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 H 3,307 square meters of forests and fields located in the Hanam-si located in the development restriction zone (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiffs agreed to divide the instant forest and field, and applied for permission to divide the instant forest and forest into land to the Defendant.

On May 9, 2016, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiffs’ application on the following grounds:

(2) In the event that the forest land of this case is divided into ten parcels before and after September 2015 and the transfer of ownership is anticipated to change the form and quality of land, the forest land of this case is in violation of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as the “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”), and it is in violation of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as the “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”). 【Disposition of this case’s forest land of this case is in violation of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation of Development Restriction Zones and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as the “Restriction on Development Restriction Zones”), since the forest land of this case is in a development restriction zone and in violation of the purpose of designating a development restriction zone and the restriction on activities to ensure the healthy living environment of citizens by preventing any disorderly urban spreading and preserving the natural environment surrounding the city, and there is no dispute about the fact that there is no ground for recognition.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiffs filed an application for permission to engage in land division in order to adjust co-ownership shares as co-owners of the forest of this case, not to divide the forest of this case and do not intend to engage in development activities.

The defendant has already permitted the division of the land of 10 land, including the forest of this case, which is the land before the division, into the land of 10 land, and the change of land form, development act, etc. that the defendant concerns.