1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 30, 2008, the previous 172㎡ B (hereinafter “instant land”) was designated as a collective community district D (hereinafter “instant collective community district”) by the Gyeonggi-do public notice on June 30, 2008, and on July 4, 2008, the land was determined and publicly announced as an urban planning facility site in the instant collective community district (hereinafter “decision on urban planning facility”).

B. On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a proposal to abolish the determination of designating the instant land as a small park (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on March 12, 2015, the Defendant sent a reply to the purport that “the Plaintiff did not submit an urban management planning document, etc. necessary for the proposal to formulate an urban management plan, so it cannot be deemed a draft proposal, and it is difficult to accept the instant application because the content of the determination of the instant urban planning facility is not unlawful in light of the procedural content of the determination of the urban planning facility.”

(hereinafter “instant reply” or “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The gist of Defendant’s main defense of safety is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not attach the document of urban management planning and the specification of the plan necessary for drafting when demanding the abolition of urban planning facilities; and (b) the instant application is filed under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

(2) The instant reply is merely a civil petition for grievance, not a civil petition for the Plaintiff’s civil petition for grievance, but not a disposition that is subject to appeal. (2) In order to be an administrative disposition to reject a proposal for formulation under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, an administrative action may be requested following the application.