1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, B, and C (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) are co-owners (Plaintiff 25,142/27,125 shares, B60/27,125 shares, C1,323/27,125 shares, and C1,325 shares, and 1,323/27,125 shares) of Gyeongbuk-do D Forest (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff, etc.: (a) filed each building report (hereinafter “previous report”) with the Defendant on the construction of a new building on the instant land (the Plaintiff, multi-family houses, and warehouses attached thereto, B: detached houses, and warehouses attached thereto); and (b) the Minister of Knowledge Economy (the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy) on September 14, 2012, designated and publicly announced the 3,242,32 square meters including the instant land as prearranged area for electric source development business pursuant to Article 11 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act (No. 2012-216, Ministry of Knowledge Economy

C. On October 18, 2012, the Defendant issued a temporary notification to the Plaintiff, etc. on a building report stating that construction of a single house (multi-household) within the green conservation area is not possible under Article 76 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), Article 71 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 31 of the Yeongdeungpo-gun Urban Planning Ordinance (hereinafter “previous Disposition”).

Plaintiff

On December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff and C filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the previous disposition (Seoul District Court 2012Guhap4748). This court, pursuant to Article 11 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, Articles 42(1)5 and 79(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and Articles 86 and 71(1) [Attachment Table 15] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, pursuant to Article 11 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, Articles 42(1)5 and 79(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and Articles 86 and 71(1) [Attachment Table 15] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc., shall not be allowed to construct a multi-family house on the instant land, which is a prearranged area for electric power resource development, but they shall be dismissed,

(hereinafter referred to as “related litigation”). (e)

On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a report on the construction of detached houses again to the Defendant on the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “instant report”).