1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned 16,984 square meters of D forest in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, B Park District (hereinafter “instant land”), E, E, 7,213 square meters, F,086 square meters, G field 4,388 square meters, etc. In most cases, the said land is designated as an absolute conservation area or a relative conservation area, and is designated as a neighboring park district under the Seopo-si, Seopo-si.

B. On February 10, 2009, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit the following business plan, and on February 13, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted the B Park creation project plan to the Defendant.

In formulating a change in the B Park creation plan, I would like to refer to the feasibility of your investment intent and related facilities, and the plan for the placement of facilities, etc. for a certain portion of the private capital inducement plan to the formulation of the plan as follows:

The name and address of the project operator and the name and address of the project operator, the lot number, land category and area of the land or building, the detailed statement of ownership and rights other than ownership, the name of the holder, the purpose of the project, the purpose of the project and the scheduled date of commencement of the project and

C. After that, on February 10, 2010, the Defendant modified an urban management plan (urban planning facilities: neighboring parks) by coordinating unreasonable matters regarding the existing park creation plan, reflecting convenience facilities for users and construction of literature and art center, and published the topographic drawings accordingly. According to the modified plan, the area and building area of the instant land and H land owned by the Plaintiff among the detailed facilities were modified so that convenience facilities (e.g., resting restaurants and retail stores) can be newly installed on the instant land and the instant land owned by the Plaintiff at Seopopoposisi, and the above revised urban management plan so that resting restaurants and retail stores can be installed on the land owned by the Plaintiff.

On June 3, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.