1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be admitted by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry of Gap evidence of Nos. 1, 4, 5, and Eul 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

The Minister of Construction and Transportation, around January 16, 1968, is the land in this case, the part connected to the road in the vicinity of the boundary of the red lines and green areas, which is one of the urban planning facilities, including the land listed in Annex B, Annex B, Annex B, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

(B) On December 23, 1983, the park building plan was determined and publicly announced as part of the green area located on the right side of the instant land, which is about 15,00,000 square meters in size. On December 23, 1983, the building plan was determined and publicly announced as part of the green area located on the right side of the instant land.

B. Meanwhile, with respect to the land listed in [Attachment 1] List 2 on August 27, 1981, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land listed in [Attachment 1] List 1 List 3 on December 7, 1981, on the 248 portion of the land listed in [Attachment 1] List 1 List 3 on September 17, 1981, on the 2/3 portion of the land listed in [Attachment 1 List 5] on September 17, 1982, on the 1/2 portion of the land listed in [Attachment 1 List 1 List 4 on March 31, 1987, each Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land listed in [Attachment 1] List 5 on September 25, 1989.

C. On April 10, 1985, the Plaintiff obtained a permit for an urban planning project (construction of park facilities) from the Defendant to install a tennis on the instant land, and completed the tennis on or around January 20, 1986 (Public Notice B of Seoul Special Metropolitan City), and from around that time until August 7, 2011, the Plaintiff operated the tennis at a fee.

On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the cancellation of the determination of urban planning facilities (park) with the content that the Plaintiff would purchase the instant land to the Defendant or cancel the decision designated as a park site.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”) but, however, the application.