The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Articles 2 subparag. 4 (c), 7, and 10, 30, 43, and 95 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 201; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) provide that the facilities determined for the installation, consolidation, or improvement of infrastructure under the urban management plan among infrastructure shall be the urban planning facilities, and the implementer of a project that installs, maintains, or improves the urban planning facilities may expropriate or use the goods or rights necessary for such project.

Article 2 Subparag. 6 (d) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act defines the infrastructure that can be determined as the above urban planning facilities as one of the infrastructure, and stipulates that “public cultural and sports facilities, such as schools, playgrounds, public buildings, cultural facilities, sports facilities, etc.

However, on June 30, 201, the Constitutional Court confirmed that Article 2 subparag. 6 (d) of the former National Land Planning Act (hereinafter “instant definition provision”) does not limit the scope specifically without considering the nature and public interest of each sports facility, and comprehensively delegates the legislation to the Presidential Decree without limiting the scope thereof. Thus, if the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the definition provision of this case, it is anticipated that the sports facilities including essential sports facilities will be subject to a decision of unconstitutionality as well as legal gap and confusion that are excluded from the subject of an urban planning facility project, instead of making a decision of unconstitutionality as a simple decision of unconstitutionality, it is desirable to apply the definition provision of this case temporarily until the unconstitutionality is removed by a new legislation, and the definition provision of this case should be amended by the legislators on December 31, 2012.