1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s disposition to authorize an implementation plan for a project of a Gun planning facility (sports facility) on June 5, 2015 is invalid.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On July 8, 2011, the Do Governor decided and published a plan for the management of a voice (sports) pursuant to Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). (Public Notice C of Chungcheongbuk-do), the said public notice includes the determination of the planning facilities (hereinafter “determination of the instant planning facilities”) to newly establish a golf course (sports) which is an urban planning facility (hereinafter “instant golf course”) at the Dalwon-gun, the Cheongbuk-gun (hereinafter “instant golf course”).

B. On February 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received an application from the Intervenor joining the Defendant for designation of a project implementer and authorization of an implementation plan; (b) subsequently, designated the Intervenor as the project implementer of the instant golf course establishment project; and (c) approved and publicly notified the implementation plan for the urban planning facility project (sports facility) as follows pursuant to Article 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on June 5, 20

(Public Notice E of the Audio Group; hereinafter referred to as “instant implementation plan”). Details of authorization of an implementation plan for a planned urban facility project;

(a) Location of the place of project execution:F member of the voice group of Chungcheongbuk-gun;

(b) Kind and name of the business: The business of urban planning facility (sports facility) (member golf course): G development;

(c) Area or size: 1,039,091 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "area");

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is an owner of a forest of H 54,545 square meters, which is incorporated in the instant golf course establishment business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the authorization disposition of the instant implementation plan is invalid

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged membership golf course cannot be subject to determination of urban/Gun planning facilities under the National Land Planning Act because it does not constitute sports facilities deemed necessary for public use. There are no special circumstances to view that the instant golf course is a membership golf course and its operation method differently.

Furthermore, through the Supreme Court's decision, the legal principles that membership golf courses do not constitute urban or Gun planning facilities.