1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor who has a credit for loans based on a final and conclusive judgment with respect to chemical food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Chemical food”).

(B) On July 16, 2008, the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2008Gahap2719 (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2008Dahap2719) paid the Plaintiff 1,026,803,424 won and the amount of KRW 445,00,000 with interest of 25% per annum from December 14, 2006 to the date of full payment (the above Decision became final and conclusive around that time).

On January 13, 1999, on the basis of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002), the land located in the 406-1 unit in the Yanpo-Eup in Gwangju (hereinafter “instant project district”) where chemical food was planned to build a new house in a quasi-urban district is designated as a village district in an agricultural and forest area, and accordingly the development plan was formulated accordingly. Since the instant project district corresponds to a natural environment conservation area in the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Plan (I zone for the conservation of the water quality of the Sejong orchard), there was a condition that the residential land should be located only a single house in the residential area and the project should be implemented only within the scope of the capacity of the sewage terminal treatment area.

C. The 1 chemical food applied for the approval of the housing construction plan and the amendment of the development plan to construct the apartment houses of 947 households in the instant project district from October 2000, but the Gwangju City Mayor was not in the remaining capacity of the sewage treatment plant necessary for constructing the buildings exceeding the regulatory scale (800m2 in the instant project district) such as multi-family housing (80m2 in total floor area) in the instant project district, and the Defendant was not in the Han River Basin Improvement and Resident Support Act.