1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked:

Defendant.

I. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 10 (including each number):

[1] On November 15, 2007, the Defendant approved the construction project plan to set up a F apartment with approximately KRW 85,400 square meters for the Dongyang Construction Industry (hereinafter “Dongyang Construction Industry”) as a project site in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, with approximately KRW 85,400 square meters as a project site, and at the time the said project site and the remaining neighboring Green Park (hereinafter “existing neighboring Park”), approximately KRW 113,800 square meters, including approximately 12,40 square meters for the said project site and the said neighboring Green Park (hereinafter “existing neighboring Park”), was determined as a Class 1 district unit plan.

On the other hand, at the time of June 30, 2009, three plaintiffs and K and K non-real estate trust companies shared 38,048 square meters of D forest land (hereinafter "the land in this case") located in the H-Gun airspace, Nam-si, Namyang-si, Seoul. The shares of the plaintiffs were 1/4 each.

On October 15, 2009, the Defendant released a Gun Park District of approximately 224 square meters, including the instant land, on the grounds of the need to link the green axis with H Gun Park.

After that, on September 8, 2010, the Defendant determined and announced (hereinafter “instant determination on urban management planning”) an urban management plan with the content of installing a new neighborhood park (hereinafter “instant neighborhood park”) on a 14,013 square meters including 2,387 square meters among the instant land instead of the existing neighborhood park (hereinafter “instant green park”) in accordance with the draft proposal for the planning of the same urban management planning as of April 5, 2010.

[2] The East Construction Industry implemented the construction project of the neighboring parks of this case without obtaining the designation of the project implementer and the authorization of the implementation plan according to the determination of the instant urban management plan.

On November 18, 2010, the Defendant designated a project developer according to the instant urban management planning decision as the Eastyang Construction Industry and authorized the implementation plan (hereinafter “instant designation approval disposition”).

The East Construction Industry shall be December 2010.