The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) on January 16, 1968, the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government land, including the instant land, was determined and publicly announced as “Ipark”; (b) on January 10, 1985, the Plaintiff obtained a permit from the Defendant for an urban planning project (construction of park facilities) to install and operate the Guate on the instant land on January 20, 1986; (c) around that time, he completed the Guate General and operated the Guate General from that time to August 7, 2011; and (d) on the Plaintiff’s proposal of this case, the Defendant rejected the instant disposition on the ground that it is necessary to maintain the instant land as a park in order to protect the urban environment and natural landscape of the city on March 27, 2014.

Based on the above facts, the court below, based on the following facts: ① around 1968, the land of this case was determined as an urban planning facility (park) and the park building plan was determined and announced on December 23, 1983, the Defendant did not create the land of this case as a park; ② the Plaintiff operated the tennis site on the land of this case from January 20, 1986 to August 7, 201 with the permission for the urban planning project; ② the land of this case was left neglected for any purpose after the Plaintiff was shut down; ② the land of this case is separated from the land of the I Park because of the road located on the Dong side of the land of this case; ③ there were many parks or sports facilities within about 1 km from the land of this case, and the need to provide the land of this case to the Gu park building plan of this case is difficult to view that there was the land of this case, especially the land of this case, the need to be provided as the land of this case.