1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of Pyeongtaek-si B large 513 square meters, and is a person who has a plan to construct housing of 2 underground floors and 15 stories above ground on the ground of the above land (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On May 11, 1995, the Pyeongtaek-si Council enacted the Ordinance on the Establishment and Management of Pyeongtaek-si Parking Lots (Ordinance No. 107, hereinafter “instant Ordinance”), and the Defendant promulgated it.

C. The Defendant had been operating and managing the Pyeongtaek-si parking lot in accordance with the contents of the instant Ordinance, which had been amended several times. On November 10, 2015, the Pyeongtaek-si Council amended or newly established the instant Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1306), and Article 18(5), (6), and (7) of the “Standards for Establishment of Annexed Parking Lots for Buildings” (hereinafter “instant Ordinance provisions”) as follows, and the Defendant promulgated the Ordinance.

(5) An annexed parking lot established under paragraph (4) shall be established as a self-stocks parking lot.

(6) Notwithstanding Article 6 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act, where a mechanical parking lot may be installed in an attached parking lot pursuant to Article 6 (5) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act, the number of parking lots calculated in accordance with the standards for installation of annexed parking lots specified in attached Table 3 shall not exceed 30 percent.

(7) A parking lot using an elevator for motor vehicles (including direction conversion devices, etc.) among self-stocks parking lots shall be installed not more than 30 percent of the number of parking lots calculated in accordance with the standards for installation of annexed parking lots in attached Table 3.

(No. 10, 2015) (No. 10, 2015) No dispute exists; entries in Gap evidence 1 and 7; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s assertion provision of this case does not directly affect the Plaintiff’s legal rights or interests, and thus cannot be subject to an appeal litigation. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Judgment 1. Administrative Litigation Act