The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant's additional decision in this court asserts, for the reasons of appeal, that "(1) the asset management corporation's sale of the land in this case cannot be deemed as not recognizing the defendant's significant public interest value of the park created on the land in this case, and ② the park created on the land in this case has been used and managed as a park since several hundred and twenty years ago, and the need to continue to exist in the future is obvious and construction is likely to infringe on the residents' right of rest, view, environmental right, etc., so the disposition in this case is legitimate."

The above assertion made by the Defendant in this court is not significantly different from the content of the Defendant’s assertion in the first instance court. In addition to the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the evidence submitted in the first instance court (Evidence Nos. 7-11, respectively), as cited earlier, it is difficult to view that the circumstance the Defendant’s internal tax is a serious public interest necessity to limit the Plaintiff’s application for a building permit meeting all the requirements of the building permit under the relevant statutes. Even if the public interest needs to maintain the land as alleged by the Defendant, even if it is acknowledged to a certain extent, it may infringe the Plaintiff’s trust that purchased the land in this case by paying the purchase price of KRW 721,20,00

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit, since it is difficult to see that the right as owner or owner is considerably restricted ex post facto.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted the plaintiff's claim, is consistent with this conclusion.