1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation in the litigation is assessed against the Intervenor.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 29, 201, the Defendant determined urban planning facilities (park) that newly build part of the FF Railroad ground sections (H) as a park in the purport that the FF Railroad was constructed as an underground section and that the above determination was publicly announced on December 29, 201, in order to create the ground section as a park.

The decision of the above urban planning facilities (park) includes the contents that establish a neighborhood park (M) on the 31,330.3 square meters of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, Jwon (Seoul K or the same Gu L).

B. On October 10, 2013, the Defendant newly constructed an urban planning facility (park) on the land of three lots, including the instant land, the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government O large 167 square meters (hereinafter “O land”), and the K railway site 74 square meters, which is a total of 340 square meters, in total, of the three lots of land in the instant land, the Defendant: (a) determined on October 10, 201 the alteration of urban planning facilities (park) (minor matters) with the content that the area of the area of the Seoul Mapo-gu I and J one part increases from 31,330.3 square meters to 31,670 square meters from 31,670 square meters among urban planning facilities (parks)

As a result, the instant real estate was incorporated into the above urban planning facility (park).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition on December 12, 2013, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case is in violation of the law of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power for the following reasons. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case must be revoked.

1. While the necessity for the public interest of M’s opening, accessibility, and securing park connectivity to be achieved due to the instant disposition was virtually insignificant, the Defendant is extremely serious even though the Plaintiff’s property rights or the Intervenor’s property rights and right to live in the instant building leased from the Plaintiff, and the private interest infringed on the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s right to live.