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 this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. For the following reasons, the first disposition and the second disposition of this case (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) constitute tort.

1) In the case of the instant disposition No. 1, the Defendant’s public official (the head of Seongdong-gu Office) was the ground for rejection of the grounds that do not constitute the grounds for rejection under the law, such as civil petition filed by neighboring residents, the result of consultation by the Defendant Urban Planning Committee, etc., and the reason why does not meet the surrounding environment of the instant land or the current status of landscape traffic, and the consultation with the consulting department with the Defendant was neglected, and thus, the instant disposition No. 1 did not have objective justification. In addition, in the instant disposition No. 1, in the instant case, the Defendant’s public official’s intentional negligence is recognized. 2), in the instant disposition process, the instant disposition was against the binding force of the final and conclusive judgment of the relevant lawsuit, ② the public official with the Defendant’s public official failed to implement it for about one year and six months pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment of the relevant lawsuit, ③ contrary to the principle of prohibition of unfair decision, the instant public official with the Defendant’s public official demanded supplementation such as the “cancellation of the entry registration of the instant land.”

B. In accordance with each of the dispositions of this case, the Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 10,037,666,67 from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 (i.e., the estimated charge revenue of KRW 6.318,880,000,000 in sales of the ancillary facilities of KRW 6.8888,333,000 in total - The Plaintiff sought damages of KRW 2.7 billion, which is a part of the charges, and damages for delay.

(Partial Claim) 3. Judgment

A. Whether the first disposition of this case was unlawful or not is stated in this part of the court.