1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be incidental to the participation.

Details of the disposition

Defendant-do, on November 5, 2007, planned and promoted the improvement of residential environment, expansion of infrastructure, and recovery of urban functions in underdeveloped areas in a wide area, and promoted them systematically and efficiently. In order to promote the balanced development of new and old cities, the Defendant-Do Governor designated the area of 805,789 square meters in Goyang-si, Hayang-si as an urban renewal acceleration district pursuant to the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 201; hereinafter “former Urban Renewal Act”), and publicly announced it as a J public notice of Gyeonggi-do.

Defendant Yangyang-do established an urban renewal acceleration plan for A urban renewal acceleration district and applied for the determination of the urban renewal acceleration plan to Defendant Gyeonggi-do Governor on February 13, 2010, and on July 29, 2010, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Governor publicly notified as F of Gyeonggi-do on July 29, 2010. The Defendant Gyeonggi-do Governor announced as follows: (i) an urban renewal acceleration plan with a content of extending the area of the urban renewal acceleration district previously designated from 805,789 square meters to 843,817 square meters to approximately 4.7% (hereinafter “instant district alteration designation”); and (ii) as indicated below, publicly notified the determination of the urban renewal acceleration plan with a content of designating the E area as an urban renewal acceleration district

(2) The lower court determined the following facts: (a) the lower court’s determination of the renewal acceleration plan as to E area; and (b) the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the renewal acceleration plan; and (c) the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the renewal acceleration plan; (d) the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the renewal acceleration plan; and (e) the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the renewal acceleration plan; and (e) the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the renewal acceleration plan, etc.; and (e) the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the renewal plan, etc.; and (e) the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the renewal plan, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.