1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1.The following facts are, in fact, apparent in the records or significant to this Court:

On August 8, 2013, the Plaintiff and Qu R, S, T, and U (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation or revocation of the instant disposition with the Gwangju District Court 2013Guhap2143, asserting that there was a significant and obvious procedural defect in the instant disposition with the Plaintiff as the designated party.

After that, the plaintiff et al. modified the purport and cause of the claim, and subsequently made the primary claim and preliminary claim, such as that stated in the “the purport of the claim and appeal” column as mentioned above.

(However, the plaintiff et al. filed a preliminary claim for revocation of the instant disposition and restitution of the fire-fighting road. (B) This part of the lawsuit was withdrawn in the first instance.

On August 14, 2014, the above court dismissed the cancellation of the instant disposition and the conjunctive claim against the restoration of road to the original state among the lawsuits filed by the plaintiff et al., and sentenced the plaintiff et al. to dismiss all the main claims and the remaining conjunctive claims.

Plaintiff

On August 29, 2014, the appeal was filed by this Court No. 2014Nu6110 on August 29, 2014, and the law firm (LLC) was appointed as the legal representative.

C. On January 22, 2015, the instant court rendered a judgment dismissing an appeal by the Plaintiff, etc. (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”), and the original judgment was served on the Plaintiff, etc.’s agent on January 29, 2015.

Plaintiff

On February 2, 2015, the instant judgment for review was dissatisfied with, and filed an appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2015Du37945 Decided February 2, 2015, and a limited liability law firm (LLC) was appointed as a legal representative.

Plaintiff

The grounds of appeal alleged in the final appeal are as follows.

(1) On April 18, 2008, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition through the “Public Notice of Decision on the Facilities of the Wood-Pool Urban Management Plan (Modification) and Approval of Topographical Drawings (Public Notice C in the Pool City; hereinafter “Public Notice of the Pool City”).

However, this case.