1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the revocation of the rejection disposition application filed on April 29, 2013 for the alteration of specific use areas shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff A is the owner of 3,067 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located on the national road No. 42 and the Plaintiff B is the owner of 3,067 square meters on the instant land.

B. The specific use area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) of the instant land is “natural green belt area”

C. On January 22, 2003, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do decided the land in this case as urban planning facilities (buffer greenbelts) and publicly notified ( Gyeonggi-do public notified D), and as a buffer green area is set up from the road boundary to 20 meters wide, more than half of the width of the main building out of the above three factories were in conflict with the buffer green belt.

On August 17, 2009, the Defendant reduced the buffer green belt width from the original 20m to 10m from the original 20m through the public notice of the Determination of the Gama Management Planning (Public notice E) of the instant land.

On April 2, 2013, the Plaintiffs submitted an application to the Defendant on April 2, 2013, to change the specific use area from natural green areas to residential areas, and to cancel the designation of buffer green areas.

E. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant sent a civil petition response against each of the Plaintiffs’ respective applications, with the following content: (a) an application for change of a specific use area: (b) an application for change of a specific use area with high development density to a specific use area; (c) a district-unit plan expanding infrastructure, such as roads, etc., to accommodate various activities in the relevant area; and (d) a simple change of a specific use area is difficult; and (b) an application for cancellation of designation of a buffer green belt is intended to be reviewed in connection with the surrounding conditions, such as the abolition of the entire buffer green belt

(hereinafter referred to as “the entire reply of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, 11, and Eul No. 1, 3, and 1.