beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The application for intervention by the supplementary intervenor C Co., Ltd. shall be dismissed;
3...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 24, 2008, the Governor of Gangwon-do rendered a decision on the Chuncheon Urban Management Planning (hereinafter “decision on the instant urban management plan”) pursuant to Article 30 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9442, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”) and publicly announced the decision as a G of Gangwon-do. The said public notice included the decision on the urban planning facilities (g) with area of 927,482 square meters in area on H Day (hereinafter “instant site”).
B. Based on the above notification, on October 24, 2008, the Defendant publicly announced the approval of the topographic map of the Chuncheon urban management plan as I in Chuncheon, pursuant to Article 32 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act.
C. On March 6, 2009, the Defendant designated the Intervenor B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) Company B (hereinafter “B”) as the project implementer of the instant project, and publicly notified it as E.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant No. 1 Disposition”) D.
On August 28, 2009, pursuant to Articles 88 and 91 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Defendant approved the implementation plan of the instant project in relation to the instant site for the implementation of the project and publicly notified the following matters as F. of Chuncheon.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant Disposition 2”) . 1. Location of the project site: Hocheon-si, Mawon
2. Type and title of the project;
(a) Kind: Business of Chuncheon urban planning facilities;
(b) Name: D development project;
3. Name of executor: B representative director J.
4. Size or scale of the project;
(a) Area: 927,482 square meters;
(b) Scale of business: 18 holess (based on recognition) of golf courses (based on the membership system), the fact that no dispute exists, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. Main Safety Determination
A. The gist of the Defendant Intervenor B’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant land for the implementation of the project, but the loan for use of land.