1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part is revoked.

Basic Facts

As to the land of this case owned by the deceased D from April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff was entitled to inheritance due to the agreement division made on April 25, 2012.

6. 29. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer.

In addition, around June 23, 2013 and April 2014, the agreement was reached between D's inheritors on the division of inherited property that the Plaintiff succeeds to all the claims for damages against the Defendant related to the land of this case.

On December 29, 2004, the Newan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Newan Construction”) filed an application for the approval of the housing construction project plan with the Defendant City Mayor on December 29, 2004 in order to newly construct ten, 391 units of the E apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”).

On March 21, 2006, the Defendant Mayor approved the said housing construction project and determined the area of 12,337 square meters including the instant land as a school site (hereinafter “instant urban planning facility decision”).

On April 22, 2014, the defendant market cancelled the decision on urban planning facilities of this case (schools).

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 5, 6, 37, 38, and Eul evidence 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion by the parties concerned as to the necessity of securing school sites. The defendant market made a decision on the urban planning facility of this case (school) without sufficiently examining the necessity of securing school sites. This is an illegal decision that deviates from and abused discretion because it is a case where the plaintiff's right to property is excessively restricted in drafting and determining the administrative plan that excessively restricts the exercise of the plaintiff's right to property, or where there is a lack of legitimacy and objectivity of the profit balancing.

The defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

In full view of the respective opinions sent by the head of the District Office of Education of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the District Office of Education") to the defendant, the opinion of the head of the District Office of Education of Pakistan.