The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the instant sales contract to be in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, including the instant original preservation site, etc.

In determining that the Defendant could not be deemed to have abused discretion when establishing a development plan and implementation plan, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the part of the instant sales contract subject to the original preservation site of this case is invalid.

The judgment below

Examining the grounds for appeal in light of the relevant statutes and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for and scope of gratuitous provision in the innovation city development project and the deviation and abuse of the limitation as the discretionary act of the instant implementation plan, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or omitting judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court did not err by omitting judgment, on the ground that there were no special reasons in relation to the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the cancellation of the deadline for fraudulent or negligent acts and the claim for damages due to illegal acts

Furthermore, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is clear that the court below rejected all of the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the defendant, as to the sales contract of this case, included the original preservation area in the object of supply for consideration in violation of the relevant statutes and distorted the development cost. Therefore, the court below did not err

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.