1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on February 25, 2004, designated and developed the 3,495,248 square meters as an urban development zone under the former Urban Development Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8970, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Urban Development Act”), including each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) as indicated in the separate sheet, as a public announcement No. 2004-58, Feb. 25, 2004, the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, designating and developing the 3,495,248 square meters as a project implementer under the former Urban Development Act (hereinafter “former Urban Development Act”). The Plaintiff was designated as a project implementer.

The project of this case was carried out successively by dividing the project zone into 1 to 3 districts (3-1, 3-2 districts in the case of three districts among them) with extensive scope of the target zone. On December 20, 2004, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly announced the "authorization of the implementation plan for the construction sections of the zone and bypass road (Public Notice No. 2004-415)" on December 30, 2005, the "Formulation of the development plan for the zone of Eunpyeong New Town and authorization of 1,2 district implementation plan (Public Notice No. 2005-448)" on December 28, 2006, and the "Formulation of the development plan for the zone and authorization of the implementation plan for the zone" (Public Notice No. 2006-458).

B. In the process of running the instant project, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit data on the “detailed status of the details of the change in the land subject to gratuitous reversion of State and public land” around October 2006 in order to consult on the current status, scope, etc. of the public facilities to be reverted to the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer, pursuant to Article 65 of the former Urban Development Act. On November 2006, the Defendant continued consultations with the Plaintiff regarding the gratuitous reversion of public facilities, including requesting the Plaintiff to revise data on the actual size, use status, etc.

The public notice of December 28, 2006 (No. 2006-458) issued by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor is also a gratuitous reversion of public facilities, etc. under Article 65 of the former Urban Development Act.