The plaintiff's appeal and the main claim added by this court are all dismissed.

after filing an appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 13, 2010, the Do governor issued a public notice of the Do governor’s plan to create C in a lot of land with a total of 326,393 square meters in the area of Briwon in Jeonyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun (hereinafter “the instant amusement park”) around January 13, 201 in accordance with the plan to foster small-do Eup in the Ministry of the Interior in 2007.

B. On October 18, 2012, the Defendant decided to proceed with the instant amusement park development project by dividing it into three stages. Of them, the Defendant directly implemented the instant amusement park development project, and on October 18, 2012, the Defendant designated a limited liability company D (hereinafter “D”) as the project implementer (hereinafter “previous implementer designation disposition”). On March 14, 2013, the Defendant approved the implementation plan for the instant project with respect to D (hereinafter “previous implementation plan”) (hereinafter “previous implementation plan approval disposition”), and “previous dispositions” when called with the previous implementation designation disposition.

C. On December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation, etc. against the Defendant on the ground that the previous implementation plan authorization disposition was unlawful, along with F, as the owner of the land incorporated into the instant project site.

(B) On July 11, 2017, the Supreme Court held that the previous disposition of designating a project implementer on July 11, 2017 was null and void on the following grounds: (a) the previous disposition of designating a project implementer on July 11, 2017: (b) holding only 59.1% of the land that falls short of the ownership requirements under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (excluding State-owned and public-owned land) for designation of a project implementer prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes; and (c) the previous disposition of designating a project implementer on July 11, 201

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Du35120, hereinafter referred to as “previous judgment”): Provided, That the Supreme Court’s “any defect in the previous implementation plan’s authorization itself” is the same.