1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Costs incurred in relation to participation in a lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, and nine parcels (hereinafter “instant application site”) determined as urban planning facilities around 1976.

The defendant is the decision-making authority of urban management planning for urban planning facilities, and the litigation intervenor is the drafting authority of urban management planning for urban planning facilities.

B. On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the cancellation of the determination of urban planning facilities with respect to the instant application site pursuant to Article 48-2(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), on the grounds that the instant application site was not executed for a period of up to a few months since the determination as urban planning facilities was made.

C. On August 30, 2018, the litigant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for the foregoing drafting on the ground that “The instant application was formulated by Kimcheon-si implementation plan for the instant case, and will modify the implementation plan by phase and review the creation or cancellation of a park for the entire neighboring parks at the time of the renewal of a long-term and unspecified enforcement facility in 2019.”

Accordingly, on October 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the cancellation of the determination of urban planning facilities pursuant to Article 48-2(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, on the ground that the litigant, who is a hospitalized right holder, notified the Defendant that he/she

(hereinafter “instant application”) . E.

On November 7, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application on the ground that “the instant application does not fall under the subject of revocation application as the Intervenor established the phased implementation plan, and thus does not fall under the subject of revocation application under Article 48-2(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act” against the Plaintiff

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 2-4 evidence, Eul's 1-4 evidence (including numbers), the whole purport of pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion is planned to create the place of application of this case as the actual park.