1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2003, the Plaintiff purchased the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large scale 147 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant land around August of the same year, and acquired its ownership.

B. Around November 2003, the Defendant (hereinafter “instant parking lot project”) authorized and publicly notified the instant implementation plan to implement a project to build a public parking lot, which is an urban planning facility, on the instant land (hereinafter “instant parking lot project”). Accordingly, the Defendant paid compensation to the Plaintiff on December 30, 2003 pursuant to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”).

C. The Defendant promoted the instant parking lot project as scheduled and set up a public parking lot on the instant land.

The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, around May 2009, designated a large zone including the instant land as a C-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Zone, and decided to abolish the instant parking lot as publicly notified D-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the instant parking lot.

E. However, the instant parking lot has been operated for the first purpose of the parking lot until now.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Around May 2009, when the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, designating a single unit including the instant land as a CHousing Redevelopment Improvement Project Zone, and the instant parking lot project was discontinued by a decision to abolish urban planning facilities (parking lot) as to the instant parking lot, the Plaintiff was subject to a repurchase right under the Public Works Act, and the head of the Defendant, the project implementer of the instant parking lot, should have notified the Plaintiff of the occurrence of the said repurchase right, as prescribed by the said Act.

Nevertheless, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu has violated the above notification obligation.