beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 25, 2009, the Plaintiff was designated as the project implementer of the Kim Sea Urban Planning Facility project (sports facilities: golf courses, playgrounds) (hereinafter “instant project”), which is a business that installs a public golf course 27 holes, golf practice range, playground, etc., on the 574 Gi-ri, Jin-ri, Jin-si, Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On May 28, 2010, the Defendant publicly announced the authorization of the implementation plan for the golf course (the project period: the period from the authorization date of the implementation plan to December 31, 2012) and the authorization of the implementation plan for the playground on June 1, 2010 (the project period to December 31, 2013 from the authorization date of the implementation plan) respectively.
C. On August 27, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the authorization of the instant project implementation plan on the following grounds:
(2) Article 13(1)15-2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) provides that “The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall grant authorization for the implementation plan of an urban planning facility (sports facilities: golf courses and playgrounds) pursuant to Article 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) to the President of the Donhae-si, Kimhae-si, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). However, he/she has obtained authorization for the implementation plan of an urban planning facility (sports facilities: golf courses and playgrounds) pursuant to Article 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). However, he/she has not completed the project during the period specified in the implementation plan, and has presented a written opinion twice. The existing investors asserted the necessity for changing the overall project plan, such as housing complex, golf course, and golf course due to lack of business feasibility, and there is no need to implement administrative procedures such as the expiration of the project period and the change of the project operator (the establishment of a special purpose).
2. The plaintiff.