1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. On October 30, 2014, the Gwangjuyang City announced the Plaintiff as the project implementer of the “Gwanyang LF Dompill Construction Project” (hereinafter “instant project”), which is a kind of urban planning facility project (market, road, public site, and landscape green belt) project, under Article 2014-175 of the Gwangjuyang City Notice.

B. On December 12, 2014, in relation to the instant project, the Defendant sent a reply to the purport that “it is possible to gratuitously vest two parcels, such as Gwangjuyang-si, Gwangjuyang-si, but no agreement is possible as the State property under the jurisdiction of the Mayang-si Office for Administration of Mayang-si on two parcels, such as No. 1575, in the Gwangjuyang-si, and three parcels, such as No. 1581, in the Gwangjuyang-si, may not be confirmed, and there is a mixture of ditches and answers, so the re-consultation is necessary.”

C. On December 18, 2014, the Mineyang City announced a public announcement of the designation of a project implementer and the authorization of an implementation plan to change the project implementation area, etc. of the instant project under Article 2014-203.

On September 13, 2016, the Defendant sent a reply to the purport that the part used as the answer among the land in the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan City 1581, 1588-2, and 740-1 is non-public facilities and thus it is impossible to be gratuitously reverted (hereinafter “Seoul-do reply”).

E. On September 19, 2016, the Mineyang City requested the Plaintiff to implement the procedure, such as disuse, etc. with respect to the instant real estate in relation to the instant parcel and the answer part without compensation (hereinafter “instant reply”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and evidence Nos. 14 through 18 (including each number), video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 is primarily entitled to request the plaintiff to gratuitously revert to public facilities, and the response of this case is an administrative disposition made by the defendant through the light mining market, and the disposition agency is the defendant.