The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Requirements for gratuitous reversion of public facilities (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) provides that “Where an administrative agency which has obtained permission for development acts installs new public facilities or public facilities replacing existing public facilities, the newly installed public facilities shall gratuitously vest in the management agency to manage such facilities, and the existing public facilities shall gratuitously vest in the person who has obtained permission for development activities.”

Article 99 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act applies mutatis mutandis to the case of installing a new public facility or a public facility replacing an existing public facility as an urban or Gun planning facility project.

The above provisions of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “instant provisions”) shall apply to cases where a project implementer, who is an administrative agency, acquires land necessary for newly installed public facilities according to a contract under private law or public law, and installs public facilities and completes the project.

At this time, it is not an issue whether the management agency of public facilities and the management agency of public facilities newly installed are consistent.

However, the provision of this case does not apply in a case where a project operator has installed public facilities and the State or a local government occupies and uses them without lawfully acquiring the land necessary for public facilities.

This interpretation also applies to cases where land necessary for the installation of public facilities is State-owned land.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da103069 Decided March 15, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Du23358 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.) (b).

In order to implement the project of this case, the lower court is legitimate in accordance with a contract under private law or public law on each of the land of this case, which is the relevant site.