1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, this is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) omitted the determination as to whether the instant project is an infrastructure with public interest that can be recognized as an urban planning facility, and the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant project falls under an urban planning facility project even though public interest is not recognized as a sports facility that can be used only by a small number of users who can cope with high costs, is unlawful. 2) The instant disposition based on the premise that the instant project falls under an urban planning facility project is unlawful. However, the public interest of the instant project considerably falls short, and thereby, the Plaintiff and its neighboring residents’ environmental rights and property rights are subject to fundamental infringement. Therefore, the instant disposition against which the balancing of such public interest and private interest is not properly established

3) Since the instant land is an fundamental property for education, permission from the competent authorities under Article 28(1) of the Private School Act is required to expropriate it as a site for public works. Since it is evident that the instant land is directly used for school education and cannot obtain permission from the competent authorities under Article 28(2) of the Private School Act, the instant disposition to incorporate the instant land into the site for the instant project is unlawful. (B) Determination on the first argument (a) The former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (Amended by Act No. 11292, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”) and its Enforcement Decree (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013); Rule 394, Nov. 1, 2011, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 394.